Delhi District Court
Hc Samar Veer vs Aman Deep Singh on 4 January, 2025
MACP Nos. 6989/16 & 5583/16; FIR No. 339/16; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA MANCHANDA, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 6989/16
UID/CNR No. DLNT01-012930-2016
HC Samarvir Singh,
S/o Sh. Rampal Singh,
R/o H.No. 525,
Police Colony,
Sector A-5, Pocket - 6,
Mamurpur, Narela,
Delhi.
.......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Amandeep Singh,
S/o Sh. Rambir Singh,
R/o VPO Shimlapuri,
LDH (Punjabi)
Also at Gali No. 2,
GTB Nagar,
PS. Dhuri,
District Sangrur,
Punjab
(Driver)
2. Sh. Prince Dhand,
S/o Sh. Tarsem Lal,
R/o H.No. 3280,
St. No. 4,
New Janta Nagar,
Ludhiana, Punjab.
HC Samarvir & ASI Krishan Kumar Vs. Amandeep Singh & Ors. Page 1 of 34
MACP Nos. 6989/16 & 5583/16; FIR No. 339/16; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Bansal Complex,
Near Dholewal Chowk,
G.T. Road, Ludhiana,
Punjab.
(Insurer) ........Respondents
AND
MAC Petition No. 5583/16
UID/CNR No. DLNT01-010403-2016
ASI Krishan Kumar,
S/o Sh. Mozi Ram,
R/o Gali No. 11,
Behind PS. Narela,
Delhi.
.......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Amandeep Singh,
S/o Sh. Rambir Singh,
R/o VPO Shimlapuri,
LDH (Punjabi)
Also at Gali No. 2,
GTB Nagar,
PS. Dhuri,
District Sangrur,
Punjab
(Driver)
2. Sh. Prince Dhand,
S/o Sh. Tarsem Lal,
R/o H.No. 3280,
St. No. 4,
New Janta Nagar,
Ludhiana, Punjab.
HC Samarvir & ASI Krishan Kumar Vs. Amandeep Singh & Ors. Page 2 of 34
MACP Nos. 6989/16 & 5583/16; FIR No. 339/16; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Bansal Complex,
Near Dholewal Chowk,
G.T. Road, Ludhiana,
Punjab.
(Insurer) ........Respondents
Date of Institution: 14.09.2016
Date of Arguments: 04.01.2025
Date of Award: 04.01.2025
APPEARENCES
Sh. Anoop Pandey, Ld. Counsel for petitioner(s) in both the cases.
None for driver and owner.
Sh. R.K. Gupta, Ld. Counsel for insurance co.
Petition under Section 166 and 140 of M.V. Act, 1988
for grant of compensation
CONSOLIDATED AWARD
1. Vide this common order, I shall dispose of both the DARs with
regard to grievous injuries sustained by HC Samarvir (injured in MACP No.
6989/16) and by ASI Krishan Kumar (injured in MACP No. 5583/16) in
Motor Vehicular Accident which occurred on 19.05.2016 at 1:15 am at main
G.T.K. Road towards Shani Mandir, Palla Red Light, Alipur, Delhi, involving
vehicle bearing registration no. PB10-FF-4601 (offending vehicle) being
driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver (Respondent no.1 herein).
HC Samarvir & ASI Krishan Kumar Vs. Amandeep Singh & Ors. Page 3 of 34
MACP Nos. 6989/16 & 5583/16; FIR No. 339/16; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
2. Both the DARs were consolidated for the purpose of recording
of evidence vide order dated 07.01.2019, passed by Ld. Predecessor and
MACP No. 6989/16 titled as " HC Samarvir Vs. Amandeep Singh & Ors."
was treated as the leading case. Accordingly, the evidence was led on behalf
of the parties in the leading case.
FACTS OF THE CASES
3. According to DAR filed in both the cases, on 19.05.2016 at
about 01:15 AM, near Shani Mandir GTK Road, Palla Red Light, the PCR
Van bearing registration no. DL1CP-7844 was on patrolling duty with driver
ASI Krishan Kumar and one HC Samarvir. While the aforesaid PCR Van was
standing, offending vehicle i.e. Punjab Roadways Bus bearing registration no.
PB10-FF-4601, which was being driven by its driver/respondent no. 1 at a
very high speed, came from Mukarba Chowk side and hit the PCR Van of
Delhi Police with a great force, as a result of which driver ASI Krishan and
HC Samarvir got injured and PCR Van also got badly damaged. They both
were immediately taken to SRHC Hospital, Narela, Delhi. A case u/s.
279/337 IPC was registered at PS. Alipur vide FIR No. 339/16. The offending
vehicle was found to be owned by respondent no. 2 Sh. Prince Dhand and
was insured with National Insurance Company Ltd /respondent no. 3 during
the period in question.
HC Samarvir & ASI Krishan Kumar Vs. Amandeep Singh & Ors. Page 4 of 34
MACP Nos. 6989/16 & 5583/16; FIR No. 339/16; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
4. The respondent no.1 & 2 i.e. driver and registered owner have
failed to file their WS despite grant of sufficient time and opportunities.
Consequently, their defence was struck off vide order dated 29.05.2017
passed by Ld. Predecessor of this court.
5. In its WS, the respondent no. 3 i.e. insurance company has
claimed that driving licence of respondent no. 1 was issued from Licencing
Authority, Sangrur, Punjab and the same was not verified by the police
authorities from the concerned authority. It has been admitted that the
offending vehicle bearing registration no. PB-10FF-4601 was insured with it
at the time of alleged accident. However, during trial a strong defence of
breach of terms and conditions to the Insurance Policy also has been taken on
the ground that the driving license of R1/driver was found to be fake.
6. From pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed in
both the cases separately by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 29.05.2017:-
1) Whether the injured HC Samar Veer (sic-
Samarvir) and ASI Krishan Kumar suffered injuries
in road traffic accident on 19.05.2016 at about 1:15
am, Main GTK Road towards Shani Mandir, Palla
Red Light, Alipur, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of
PS. Alipur, due to rashness and negligence on the
part of the driver Aman Deep who was driving
vehicle bearing registration no. PB10-FF-4601,
owned by Prince Chand (sic-Prince Dhand) and
insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd.?OPP
HC Samarvir & ASI Krishan Kumar Vs. Amandeep Singh & Ors. Page 5 of 34
MACP Nos. 6989/16 & 5583/16; FIR No. 339/16; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
2) Whether the injured is entitled to any
compensation if so to what amount and from whom?
OPP.
3) Relief.
7. In order to establish their claim, the petitioners have examined
six witnesses i.e. PW1 Sh. Samarvir Singh(Injured in MACP No. 6989/16),
PW2 Sh. Krishan Kumar (Injured in MACP No. 5583/16), PW3 ASI Jaibir
Singh (from Account Department of office of employer of injured persons),
PW4 HC Gavin (from the office of employer of injured Krishan Kumar),
PW5 W/ASI Sheela (from the office of employer of injured Samarvir Singh),
and PW6 ASI Mahinder Kumar (from the office of employer of injured
Samarvir Singh). On the other hand, no evidence was adduced by respondent
no. 1 & 2. The respondent no. 3 i.e. Insurance Company has examined one
witness i.e. R3W1 Sh. B.S. Yadav, Sr. Assistant, National Insurance Company
Limited and its evidence was closed vide order dated 02.08.2022.
8. Arguments addressed by respective counsels heard and
considered. DAR alongwith all documents and material relied upon perused
carefully. The issue wise determination is as under:-
ISSUE NO. 1 ( IN BOTH THE CASES)
9. The onus to prove, the said issue was placed on the
petitioner(s)/injured persons. To prove the said issue, petitioner(s) examined
HC Samarvir & ASI Krishan Kumar Vs. Amandeep Singh & Ors. Page 6 of 34
MACP Nos. 6989/16 & 5583/16; FIR No. 339/16; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
PW1 Sh. Samarvir Singh (injured himself) and PW2 Sh. Krishan Kumar
(injured himself) by way of their affidavits of evidence Ex. PW1/A &
Ex. PW2/A respectively. In their respective evidence, both the
aforementioned two witnesses have deposed on the lines of averments made
in the DAR.
10. PW1 Sh. Samarvir Singh has relied upon the following
documents:-
S.No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of his office ID Card Ex PW1/1(OSR)
2. Copy of his PAN Card Ex. PW1/2(OSR)
3. Copy of his Aadhaar Card Ex. PW1/3(OSR)
4. Copy of his bank passbook PW1/4(OSR)
5. Salary slip Ex. PW1/6
6. Medical receipts Ex. PW1/7(colly)
11. PW1 (injured himself) in his testimony, by way of affidavit
(PW1/A) deposed that on 19.05.2016, he was on duty on PCR Van No.
DL1CP-7844, Outer Zone Unit alongwith another injured namely ASI
Krishan Kumar. He further deposed that at about 01:15 am, he alongwith ASI
Krishan Kumar was standing with aforesaid PCR on Libra – 42 and ASI
Krishan Kumar was sitting on driver seat and he was sitting on left side seat
at main GTK Road, towards Shani Mandir, Palla Red Light, Alipur, in the
meanwhile a bus bearing registration no. PB10-FF-4601 which was being
HC Samarvir & ASI Krishan Kumar Vs. Amandeep Singh & Ors. Page 7 of 34
MACP Nos. 6989/16 & 5583/16; FIR No. 339/16; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
driven by its driver at a very high speed, rashly, negligently, without taking
necessary precautions, in a zigzag manner, came from Mukarba Chowk side
towards Singhu Border and hit their PCR with a great force, as a result of
which, he sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately taken to SRHC
Hospital, Narela, Delhi. He further deposed that FIR No. 339/16 u/s. 279/337
IPC was registered at PS. Alipur with regard to the said accident. He
categorically deposed that the accident in question had occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of offending vehicle by its driver/R1.
12. PW1/Injured was cross-examined on behalf of insurance
company during which he deposed that at the time of accident, their PCR Van
was stationed. He further deposed that their PCR was parked on the side of
the road, near Shani Mandir. He further deposed that they just stopped their
vehicle before the accident. He denied the suggestion that their vehicle was in
the middle of the road and they suddenly, stop the vehicle which caused the
accident. He further denied the suggestion that the accident took place due to
the negligent driving of ASI Krishan Kumar.
13. PW2 Sh. Krishan Kumar, injured has relied upon the following
documents:-
S.No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of his office ID Card Ex.PW2/1(OSR)
2. Copy of his PAN Card Ex.PW2/2(OSR)
3. Copy of his driving licence Ex.PW2/3(OSR)
HC Samarvir & ASI Krishan Kumar Vs. Amandeep Singh & Ors. Page 8 of 34
MACP Nos. 6989/16 & 5583/16; FIR No. 339/16; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
14. PW2 (injured himself) in his testimony, by way of affidavit
(PW2/A) deposed that on 19.05.2016, he was on duty on PCR Van No.
DL1CP-7844, Outer Zone Unit alongwith another injured namely HC
Samarvir Singh. He further deposed that at about 01:15 am, he alongwith HC
Samarvir Singh was standing with aforesaid PCR on Libra – 42 and he was
sitting on driver seat and HC Samarvir Singh was sitting on left side seat at
main GTK Road, towards Shani Mandir, Palla Red Light, Alipur, in the
meanwhile a bus bearing registration no. PB10-FF-4601 which was being
driven by its driver at a very high speed, rashly, negligently, without taking
necessary precautions, in a zigzag manner, came from Mukarba Chowk side
towards Singhu Border and hit their PCR with a great force, as a result of
which, he sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately taken to Max
Hospital, Delhi. He further deposed that FIR No. 339/16 u/s. 279/337 IPC
was registered at PS. Alipur with regard to the said accident. He categorically
deposed that the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of offending vehicle by its driver/R1.
15. PW2/Injured was cross-examined on behalf of insurance
company during which he deposed that at the time of accident, their PCR Van
was stationed. He further deposed that their PCR was parked on the side of
the road, near Shani Mandir. He further deposed that they just stopped their
vehicle before the accident. He denied the suggestion that their vehicle was in
the middle of the road and they suddenly, stop the vehicle which caused the
HC Samarvir & ASI Krishan Kumar Vs. Amandeep Singh & Ors. Page 9 of 34
MACP Nos. 6989/16 & 5583/16; FIR No. 339/16; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
accident. He further denied the suggestion that the accident took place due to
his negligence as he was driving the vehicle at that time.
16. It is evident from the testimonies of PW1 & PW2 that the
respondents more particularly insurance company could not impeach their
testimonies through litmus test of cross-examination and said witnesses are
found to have successfully withstood the test of cross-examination. Even
otherwise, PW1 & PW2 themselves are the injured having sustained injuries
due to the accident in question. Moreover, FIR No. 339/16 (which is part of
DAR) is shown to have been registered on the statement of one of the
injured/PW2 ASI Krishan Kumar. The contents of said FIR would show that
the complainant has disclosed therein the same sequence of facts leading to
the accident as deposed by him in his evidence as PW2. Hence, there is no
possibility of any false implication of driver of offending vehicle or false
involvement of the said vehicle in this case. Furthermore, said FIR is shown
to have been registered on the date of accident itself i.e.,19.05.2016. Thus,
there is no possibility of false implication of respondent no. 1 and / or false
involvement of offending vehicle at the instance of the petitioner(s). On the
other hand, none of the respondents examined any witness in order to rebut
the testimonies of PW1 & PW2 during the course of inquiry. Hence, there is
no reason to disbelieve their uncontroverted testimonies on the point of
accident in question being caused by respondent no. 1 while driving the
offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
HC Samarvir & ASI Krishan Kumar Vs. Amandeep Singh & Ors. Page 10 of 34
MACP Nos. 6989/16 & 5583/16; FIR No. 339/16; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
17. The facts of the case, arguments of the Ld. Counsels, evidence,
material on record and duly verified documents of the criminal case, have
been carefully examined and scrutinized. Respondent no. 1 namely
Sh. Amandeep Singh has been charge sheeted for offences punishable
U/s 279/338 IPC by the investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion
on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in question has
taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle.
18. Perusal of the mechanical inspection report dated 20.05.2016
(which is the part of DAR) of the offending vehicle would show fresh
damages i.e. its front side body and bumper left side portion was damaged
and its left side headlight and indicator light were damaged . Likewise, copy
of mechanical inspection report dated 20.05.2016 (which is also part of
DAR) of PCR Van of victims would show fresh damages i.e., its right side
both door windows and body damaged; its pillar damaged; its roof right side
portion damaged; its right side mirror was damaged; its right front side body
fender and bumper were damaged; its bonnet and grill right side portion was
damaged; its dash board right side portion was damaged; its steering wheel
was damaged and bracket was bended; its left front side wheel rim was
scratched and bended and tyre was damaged; its front windscreen glass was
broken and its PCR lights were damaged. Both these reports would also
corroborate the testimonies of PW1 & PW2 to the effect that offending
vehicle came from Mukarba Chowk side and hit their vehicle. The rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle may be proved, either by direct
HC Samarvir & ASI Krishan Kumar Vs. Amandeep Singh & Ors. Page 11 of 34
MACP Nos. 6989/16 & 5583/16; FIR No. 339/16; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
evidence or by circumstances including principle by applying the res-ipsa
loquitur. The nature and manner of damage to the PCR Van of victims and
the offending Bus due to collision clearly points out to rash and negligent
manner of driving of offending vehicle by respondent no. 1/driver, thereby
causing injuries to the victim.
19. It is pertinent to note that the respondent no.1/driver of offending
vehicle was the other material witness to throw light by testifying as to how
and under what circumstances, the accident has taken place. However, he has
preferred not to enter into the witness box. Thus, an adverse inference is
liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question has
taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the
respondent no. 1. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner(s) had
any enmity with the driver of the offending vehicle so as to falsely implicate
him in this case. Reliance placed on Cholamandalam MS General Insurance
Co. Ltd. V. Kamlesh & Ors, MAC APP. No. 530/2008 passed by Hon’ble
Delhi High Court on 11.11.2008.
20. Copy of MLCs (which are also part of DAR) of injured persons
namely HC Samarvir and ASI Krishan Kumar filed would show that they had
been removed to SRHC Hospital, Narela and Max Hospital respectively after
the accident with alleged history of RTA on the date of accident itself i.e. on
19.05.2016. On their local examination in the aforesaid hospitals, they were
found to have sustained multiple injuries as mentioned therein. The said
injuries are consistent with the injuries which are sustained in motor
HC Samarvir & ASI Krishan Kumar Vs. Amandeep Singh & Ors. Page 12 of 34
MACP Nos. 6989/16 & 5583/16; FIR No. 339/16; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
vehicular accident. Again, there is no challenge to the said document from the
side of respondents including insurance company.
21. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has
come on record, it is held that the petitioners have been able to prove on the
basis of preponderance of probabilities that petitioner(s) namely Sh. Samarvir
Singh and Sh. Krishan Kumar had sustained grievous injuries in the Motor
Vehicular Accident which has occurred on 19.05.2016 at 1:15 am at main
G.T.K. Road towards Shani Mandir, Palla Red Light, Alipur, Delhi, due to
rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent no. 1. Thus,
issue no. 1 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO.2
22. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 enjoins upon the
Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award
determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and
reasonable.
23. It has been duly established that both the petitioners namely
Sh. Samarvir Singh and Sh. Krishan Kumar sustained grievous injuries, as
per their respective MLCs and treatment record duly proved, in the road
traffic accident which took place on 19.05.2016 at 1:15 am at main G.T.K.
Road towards Shani Mandir, Palla Red Light, Alipur, Delhi, due to rash and
HC Samarvir & ASI Krishan Kumar Vs. Amandeep Singh & Ors. Page 13 of 34
MACP Nos. 6989/16 & 5583/16; FIR No. 339/16; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
negligent driving of the respondent no. 1/driver, to the extent as discussed
herein-above, in Issue no.1. Accordingly, petitioner(s) are entitled for just and
fair compensation in the present case.
24. The intent and objective of the Beneficial Legislation is to grant
equitable compensation to the vulnerable victims of road accidents and
dynamic law has evolved towards grant of just and fair quantum of awards
and has brought consistency and uniformity towards the desired goal. The
Hon’ble Apex Court in “Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation” (2009)
6 SCC 121, which was affirmed by a bench of three Hon€ble Judges in
Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, held
as under:
“16. “Just compensation” is adequate compensation which is
fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case,
to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far
as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles
relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a
bonanza, largesse or source of profit.
17. Assessment of compensation though involving certain
hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be
objective. Justice and justness emanate from equality in
treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and
fairness and uniformity in the decision making process and
the decisions. While it may not be possible to have
mathematical precision or identical awards, in assessing
compensation, same or similar facts should lead to awards in
the same range. When the factors/inputs are the same, and
the formula/legal principles are the same, consistency and
uniformity, and not divergence and freakiness, should be the
result of adjudication to arrive at just compensation…”
HC Samarvir & ASI Krishan Kumar Vs. Amandeep Singh & Ors. Page 14 of 34
MACP Nos. 6989/16 & 5583/16; FIR No. 339/16; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
25. These guiding principles for assessment of “just and reasonable
compensation” have been torch bearer in injury cases also as laid down by
Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in III (2007), ACC 676 titled as Oriental
Insurance Co,. Ltd., Vs. Vijay Kumar Mittal & Ors, wherein it has been
held:-
“10. The possession of one’s own body is the first and most
valuable all human rights and while awarding compensation
for bodily injuries this primary element is to be kept in mind.
Bodily injury is to be treated and varies on account of
gravity of bodily injury. Though it is impossible to equate
money with human suffering, agony and personal
deprivation, the Court and Tribunal should make an honest
and serious attempt to award damages so far as money can
compensate the loss. Regard must be given to the gravity
and degree of deprivation as well as the degree of awareness
of the deprivation. Damages awarded in personal injury
cases must be substantial and not token damages…..”
11. The general principle which should govern the
assessment of damages in persons injury cases is that the
Court should award to injured persons such a sum as will
put him in the same position as he would have been in the
same position as he would have been in if he had not
sustained injuries”.
26. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in further development of the legal
position for grant of reasonable and fair compensation, has pronounced
guiding parameters that “the compensation should be just and is not expected
to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly or a pittance”.
Reliance is placed on 2012 (8) SLT 676 titled K. Suresh Vs. New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. The golden principles for assessment of adequate
compensation to victims of road accident have been appreciated by the full
bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in 2017 (13) SCALE 12 : 2017 XI AD (SC)
HC Samarvir & ASI Krishan Kumar Vs. Amandeep Singh & Ors. Page 15 of 34
MACP Nos. 6989/16 & 5583/16; FIR No. 339/16; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
113 titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., wherein it
has been held:-
“…..The Tribunal and the Courts have to bear in mind that
the basic principle lies in pragmatic computation which is in
proximity to reality. It is a well expected norm that money
can not substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for
grant of just compensation having uniformity of approach.
There has to be a balance between the two extremes, that is,
a windfall and the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum…..”
27. Accordingly, the entitlement of petitioner(s) to just
compensation is being assessed in the background of well settled parameters
and guidelines as discussed herein-above. The extent and nature of injuries,
medical expenses, period of treatment and nature of employment of each of
the injured, if any, has distinct facts and therefore, each claim needs to be
assessed individually. Therefore, the Award upon assessment of
compensation for each injured is being done separately.
Compensation in MACP No. 6989/16 (Injured Samarvir Singh)
MEDICAL EXPENSES
28. PW1 Sh. Samarvir Singh i.e., injured himself, has deposed in his
evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that after the accident, he was
taken to SRHC Hospital, Narela, Delhi and thereafter, he was taken to Max
Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi and further referred to Park Hospital, Delhi,
where he remained admitted for a period of seven days. He further deposed
that thereafter, he was again taken to Max Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi
HC Samarvir & ASI Krishan Kumar Vs. Amandeep Singh & Ors. Page 16 of 34
MACP Nos. 6989/16 & 5583/16; FIR No. 339/16; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
and remained hospitalized there for a period of four days. He further deposed
that he had incurred about Rs. 50,000/- on his medical treatment. During
cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that he had
not placed the original bills of Max Hospital. He further deposed that some of
the amount was received by him from the department. He further deposed
that he had received Rs. 70,000/- from his department. He further deposed
that the expenses incurred by him in Max Hospital were reimbursed by his
department. He denied the suggestion that he had not spent Rs. 50,000/- on
medical treatment. He deposed that he had received the payment against his
receipts Ex. PW1/7. He volunteered that he had received only a sum of Rs.
70,000/- from his department. He denied the suggestion that he had not spent
any amount from his pocket on his medical treatment.
29. It is relevant to note that the injured Sh. Samarvir Singh has
relied upon medical bills to the tune of Rs. 76,068/- which are part of Ex.
PW1/7(colly). It may be noted here that during his cross-examination, injured
himself admitted that he had received a sum of Rs. 70,000/- from his
department against the receipt Ex. PW1/7(colly). It is relevant to mention
here that injured has relied upon three medical bills totalling to Rs. 552/-
which are pertaining to the year 2015 whereas, the accident in question had
occurred on 19.05.2016. Thus, the aforesaid amount can not be granted to the
petitioner under this head. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 5,516/- (Rs. 75,516/-
minus Rs. 70,000/-) is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
HC Samarvir & ASI Krishan Kumar Vs. Amandeep Singh & Ors. Page 17 of 34
MACP Nos. 6989/16 & 5583/16; FIR No. 339/16; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
LOSS OF INCOME/LEAVES
30. Injured namely Sh. Samarvir Singh (PW1) has categorically
deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex PW1/A that he was aged
about 48 years; he was working as Head Constable in Delhi Police and was
getting monthly salary of Rs. 45,559/- at the time of accident in question.
During cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that
he had not placed on record his salary slip for the month of April to June,
2016. He admitted that his salary was not deducted during his leave from his
office due to the accident. He further deposed that he had not placed his leave
certificate for the leaves obtained by him from his office due to the accident.
He denied the suggestion that he had not remained on leave for 40 days.
31. The documents i.e., Discharge summary (which is part of Ex.
PW1/7 Colly) of Park Hospital in respect of injured Sh. Samarvir Singh
would reveal that he was admitted in the said hospital on 19.05.2016 and was
discharged on 28.05.2016. As per the said discharge summary, the petitioner
was found to have suffered fracture maxilla with fracture zygomatic bone
with fracture nasal bone with fracture lateral wall right orbit. It may be noted
here that as per the aforesaid treatment record, last prescription of Max
Hospital is dated 15.07.2016. The date of accident in the present case is
19.05.2016. Thus, after considering the nature of injuries sustained by the
petitioner and in view of the treatment record brought on record, it can be
presumed that he would not have been able to work at all atleast for a period
of 3 months or so.
HC Samarvir & ASI Krishan Kumar Vs. Amandeep Singh & Ors. Page 18 of 34
MACP Nos. 6989/16 & 5583/16; FIR No. 339/16; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
32. PW3 ASI Jaibir Singh is the official from the office of employer
of injured. He produced the certified pay slips of petitioner HC Samarvir
Singh for the months of August, September and October, 2015 and exhibited
the same as Ex. PW3/1(colly). He also produced the certified copies of Form
– 16 of HC Samarvir Singh for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 and
exhibited the same as Ex. PW3/2(colly). During his cross-examination on
behalf of insurance company, he admitted that he had not brought the salary
record of HC Samarvir Singh for the months of March, April and May, 2016.
He deposed that he had also not brought the Form – 16 of HC Samarvir
Singh for the Assessment Year 2015-16. He further deposed that he could not
tell whether any salary was deducted from the accounts of both the aforesaid
officials.
33. PW5 W/ASI Sheela Devi is the Official from the office of
employer of injured. He produced the service record of injured HC Samarvir
Singh. He exhibited the copy of record showing commuted leave availed by
the said official for a period of 77 days w.e.f., 19.05.2016 till 03.08.2016 as
Ex. PW5/4(colly) which was calculated as 77 X 2 = 154 days. He further
deposed that a total of 154 days commuted leaves were deducted from the
leave account of the aforesaid official. During his cross-examination on
behalf of insurance company, he deposed that as per record, as on
03.08.2016, the concerned official was having 263 commuted/medical leaves
to his credit. He further deposed that he had no knowledge whether any
application for medical leave was given by the concerned official with the
HC Samarvir & ASI Krishan Kumar Vs. Amandeep Singh & Ors. Page 19 of 34
MACP Nos. 6989/16 & 5583/16; FIR No. 339/16; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
department or not. He further deposed that in their branch, they had not
received any application for commuted leave of the concerned official. He
further deposed that in commuted leave, some of the allowances were
deducted, however, other complete payment of salary was made to the
employee. He further deposed that he did not know the allowances which
were deducted from the salary. He further deposed that he did not know
whether the concerned official has been paid the full salary and allowances
during the period when he remained on leave. He further deposed that he had
no knowledge whether the concerned official has applied for any leave for
the said period and of which type.
34. It is apparent from the document Ex. PW1/6 that the
petitioner/injured Sh. Samarvir Singh was working as Head Constable in
Delhi Police and was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 47,664/- in April, 2017.
As per document i.e. pay slip (Ex. PW3/1) of the month of October, 2015, the
petitioner/injured was getting monthly salary of Rs. 38,602/-. However, the
petitioner has failed to prove his salary slip for the relevant month i.e. May
2016. Thus, in the absence of salary slip pertaining to period in question, I am
inclined to take salary for the month of October, 2015 for grant of
compensation under this head. Petitioner has also proved that he took 154
days leaves from his office due to the injuries sustained by him in the
accident in question. The ocular testimony of PW1 is also corroborated by the
testimony of PW5 & PW6 and the record produced by them during the
course of inquiry. In view of said leave record and payslip, there is no iota of
HC Samarvir & ASI Krishan Kumar Vs. Amandeep Singh & Ors. Page 20 of 34
MACP Nos. 6989/16 & 5583/16; FIR No. 339/16; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
doubt that the petitioner was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 38,602/- at the
time of accident. Hence, a sum of Rs. 1,98,000/- (rounded off) (Rs. 38,602/-
x 154/30) is awarded in favour of petitioner for loss of leaves. (Reliance
placed on “Nathu Lal Vs. Sandeep Gulati & Ors, MAC APP No. 770/11,
decided on 21.05.12, Sandeep Mishra Vs. Vijay Kumar Yadav & Ors., MAC
APP No. 215/10, decided on 04.09.12, Satyawati Wadhwa Vs. Jitender
Singh & Ors, MAC APP No. 73/13, decided on 10.05.16 and The New India
Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Constable Mohar Singh & Ors., MAC APP
No. 657/2015 decided on 16.10.17, by Hon’ble Delhi High Court)
TRANSPORATION ALLOWANCES
35. Ld. Counsel for petitioner argued that petitioner could not attend
his duty w.e.f. 19.05.2016 till 03.08.2016 as per record Ex. PW5/4(colly). It
is further argued that since the petitioner could not attend his duty during the
aforesaid period, he was not paid transport allowance by his department for
the said period. Thus, an amount should be awarded to the petitioner under
this head.
36. It may be noted here that the petitioner has failed to file his pay
slip for the relevant period i.e. w.e.f. May 2016 to August, 2016 for which it
is claimed that he did not receive transport allowance from his department. In
the absence of any document, I am not inclined to award any amount to the
petitioner under this head.
HC Samarvir & ASI Krishan Kumar Vs. Amandeep Singh & Ors. Page 21 of 34
MACP Nos. 6989/16 & 5583/16; FIR No. 339/16; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
PAIN AND SUFFERING
37. For the purpose of ascertaining compensation against non-
pecuniary heads, reliance is placed upon ruling of Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in the matter titled as ” Nathu Lal Vs. Sandeep Gulati & Ors.” passed
in appeal bearing no. MAC.APP 770/2011 decided on 21.05.12, wherein it
has been held as under:-
“15. It is settled law that a particular amount cannot be fixed
on pain and sufferings for all cases as is varies from case to
case. Judicial notice can be taken on the fact that since the
petitioner had got injuries/fracture as aforesaid, he
mighthave suffered acute pain and sufferings owing to the
said injuries. He might have also consumed heavy dose of
anti-biotic etc. and also might have remained without
movements of his body for a considerable period of time. In
order to ascertain the pain and sufferings compensation, I am
guided by the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
case Satya Narain v. Jai Kishan, FAO No.709/02, date of
decision: 2.2.2007, Delhi High Court by Hon’ble Mr. Justice
Pradeep Nandrajog wherein it was held that:-“On account of
pain and suffering, suffice would it be to note that it is
difficult to measure pain and suffering in terms of a money
value, However, compensation which has to be paid must
bear some objectives co-relation with the pain and suffering.
The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering would be:
(a)Nature of injury.
(b)Body part affected.
(c)Duration of the treatment.”
38. As already considered, the petitioner required treatment for a
period of more than three months from the date of accident owing to grievous
injuries suffered by him in the road traffic accident. Thus, he would have
undergone great physical sufferings, inconvenience and mental trauma on
HC Samarvir & ASI Krishan Kumar Vs. Amandeep Singh & Ors. Page 22 of 34
MACP Nos. 6989/16 & 5583/16; FIR No. 339/16; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
account of the accident in question. Keeping in view the nature of injuries
and duration of treatment of petitioner, a sum of Rs. 70,000/- is considered
reasonable towards pain & sufferings.
LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
39. As already mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence on
record to establish that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries in the
accident. Thus, he would not be able to enjoy general amenities of life after
the accident in question and his quality of life has been definitely affected. In
view of the nature of injuries and duration of his treatment, I award a notional
sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life
to the petitioner.
CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES
40. During course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for petitioner argued
that petitioner has spent considerable amount on special diet, conveyance and
attendant charges. The petitioner has failed to lead any cogent evidence on
record in respect of amount incurred by him under the aforesaid heads. At the
same time, it cannot be overlooked that he had sustained grievous injuries in
the accident in question. Thus, he would have taken special rich protein diet
for his speedy recovery and would have also incurred considerable amount
towards conveyance charges while commuting to the concerned hospital as
HC Samarvir & ASI Krishan Kumar Vs. Amandeep Singh & Ors. Page 23 of 34
MACP Nos. 6989/16 & 5583/16; FIR No. 339/16; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
OPD patient for his regular check up & follow up during the period of his
medical treatment. He would have been definitely helped by some person
either outsider or from his family, to perform his daily activities as also while
visiting the hospital during the course of his medical treatment. In these facts
and circumstances, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 15,000/-each for conveyance
charges, special diet and attendant charges to the petitioner.
Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:-
1. Medical Expenses Rs. 5,516/-
2. Loss of income/leaves Rs. 1,98,000/-
3. Pain and suffering Rs. 70,000/-
4. Loss of general amenities and Rs. 50,000/-
enjoyment of life
5. Conveyance, special diet and Rs. 45,000/-
attendant charges
Total Rs. 3,68,516/-
Rounded off Rs. 3,69,000/-
Compensation in MACP No. 5583/16 (Injured Krishan Kumar)
MEDICAL EXPENSES
41. PW2 Sh. Krishan Kumar i.e., injured himself, has deposed in his
evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW2/A) that after the accident, he was
HC Samarvir & ASI Krishan Kumar Vs. Amandeep Singh & Ors. Page 24 of 34
MACP Nos. 6989/16 & 5583/16; FIR No. 339/16; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
taken to Max Hospital, Delhi. He further deposed that he had incurred about
Rs. 50,000/- on his medical treatment. During cross-examination on behalf of
insurance company, he deposed that he got reimbursed all his medical bills
including bills of Max Hospital. He denied the suggestion that he had not
spent Rs. 50,000/- on medical treatment.
42. It is relevant to note that injured Krishan Kumar has himself
admitted in his cross-examination that his all the medical bills got reimbursed
by his department. Thus, no amount is awarded to the petitioner under this
head.
LOSS OF INCOME/LEAVES
43. Injured namely Sh. Krishan Kumar (PW2) has categorically
deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex PW2/A that he was aged
about 48 years and he was working as ASI in Delhi Police at the time of
accident in question. During cross-examination on behalf of insurance
company, he deposed that he had not placed on record his salary slip for the
month of April to June, 2016. He admitted that his salary was not deducted
during his leave from his office due to the accident. He further deposed that
he had not placed his fitness certificate on record. He further deposed that he
had not placed his leave certificate for the leaves obtained by him from his
office due to the accident. He denied the suggestion that he had not remained
on leave for five months.
HC Samarvir & ASI Krishan Kumar Vs. Amandeep Singh & Ors. Page 25 of 34
MACP Nos. 6989/16 & 5583/16; FIR No. 339/16; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
44. The petitioner has failed to file any of his medical treatment
record showing the period upto which he had obtained medical treatment.
However, as per the MLC of the petitioner/injured, he had suffered grievous
injuries in the accident in question. Thus, after considering the nature of
injuries sustained by the petitioner and in view of the treatment record
brought on record, it can be presumed that he would not have been able to
work at all atleast for a period of 2 months or so.
45. PW3 ASI Jaibir Singh is the official from the office of employer
of injured. He produced the certified pay slips of petitioner ASI Krishan
Kumar for the months of March to May, 2016 and exhibited the same as
Ex. PW3/3(colly). He also produced the certified copies of Form – 16 of ASI
Krishan Kumar for Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2015-16 and exhibited the
same as Ex. PW3/4(colly). During his cross-examination on behalf of
insurance company, he deposed that he could not tell whether any salary was
deducted from the accounts of both the injured.
46. PW4 HC Gavin is the Official from the office of employer of
injured. He produced the service record of injured ASI(Driver) Krishan
Kumar. He exhibited the copy of record showing commuted leave availed by
the said official for a period of 60 days w.e.f., 19.05.2016 till 18.07.2016 as
Ex. PW4/5 which was calculated as 60 X 2 = 120 days as Ex. PW4/6. He
further deposed that a total of 120 days HPL(commuted leave) were deducted
from the leave account of the aforesaid official for the aforesaid period.
HC Samarvir & ASI Krishan Kumar Vs. Amandeep Singh & Ors. Page 26 of 34
MACP Nos. 6989/16 & 5583/16; FIR No. 339/16; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
During his cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed
that as per record, as on 19.05.2016, the concerned official was having 226
medical leaves to his credit. He further deposed that he had no knowledge
whether any application for medical leave was given by the concerned
official with the department or not. He further deposed that in their branch,
they had not received any application for commuted leave of the concerned
official. He further deposed that in commuted leave, some of the allowances
were deducted, however, other complete payment of salary was made to the
employee. He further deposed that he did not know the allowances which
were deducted from the salary. He further deposed that he did not know
whether the concerned official has been paid the full salary and allowances
during the period when he remained on leave. He further deposed that he had
no knowledge whether the concerned official has applied for any leave for
the said period and of which type.
47. It is apparent from the document Ex. PW3/3 that the
petitioner/injured Sh. Krishan Kumar was working as ASI in Delhi Police and
was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 52,242/- in May, 2016. Petitioner has also
proved that he took 120 days commuted leaves from his office due to the
injuries sustained by him in the accident in question. The ocular testimony of
PW2 is also corroborated by the testimony of PW4 and the record produced
by him during the course of inquiry. In view of said leave record and payslip,
there is no iota of doubt that the petitioner was drawing monthly salary of
Rs. 52,242/- at the time of accident. Hence, a sum of Rs. 2,09,000/- (rounded
HC Samarvir & ASI Krishan Kumar Vs. Amandeep Singh & Ors. Page 27 of 34
MACP Nos. 6989/16 & 5583/16; FIR No. 339/16; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
off) (Rs. 52,242/- x 120/30) is awarded in favour of petitioner for loss of
leaves. (Reliance placed on “Nathu Lal Vs. Sandeep Gulati & Ors, MAC
APP No. 770/11, decided on 21.05.12, Sandeep Mishra Vs. Vijay Kumar
Yadav & Ors., MAC APP No. 215/10, decided on 04.09.12, Satyawati
Wadhwa Vs. Jitender Singh & Ors, MAC APP No. 73/13, decided on
10.05.16 and The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Constable Mohar
Singh & Ors., MAC APP No. 657/2015 decided on 16.10.17, by Hon’ble
Delhi High Court)
TRANSPORATION ALLOWANCES
48. Ld. Counsel for petitioner argued that petitioner could not attend
his duty w.e.f. 19.05.2016 till 18.07.2016 due to the injuries sustained by him
in the accident and he was under treatment during the aforesaid period. The
said fact is duly substantiated by the document which is part of leave record
produced by PW4 in his evidence. It is further argued that since the
petitioner could not attend his duty during the aforesaid period, he was not
paid transport allowance by his department for the said period. Thus, an
amount should be awarded to the petitioner under this head.
49. It may be noted here that the petitioner has proved his pay slip
Ex. PW3/3 for the relevant period i.e. May, 2016. A bare perusal of payslip
Ex. PW3/3 clearly shows that petitioner had received transport allowance of
Rs. 3,600/- in the month May, 2016. It is relevant to mention here that
HC Samarvir & ASI Krishan Kumar Vs. Amandeep Singh & Ors. Page 28 of 34
MACP Nos. 6989/16 & 5583/16; FIR No. 339/16; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
petitioner has failed to file any pay slips for the subsequent period for which
it is claimed that he did not receive transport allowance from his department.
In the absence of any such document, I am not inclined to award any amount
to the petitioner under this heard.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
50. For the purpose of ascertaining compensation against non-
pecuniary heads, reliance is placed upon ruling of Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in the matter titled as ” Nathu Lal Vs. Sandeep Gulati & Ors.” passed
in appeal bearing no. MAC.APP 770/2011 decided on 21.05.12, wherein it
has been held as under:-
“15. It is settled law that a particular amount cannot be fixed
on pain and sufferings for all cases as is varies from case to
case. Judicial notice can be taken on the fact that since the
petitioner had got injuries/fracture as aforesaid, he
mighthave suffered acute pain and sufferings owing to the
said injuries. He might have also consumed heavy dose of
anti-biotic etc. and also might have remained without
movements of his body for a considerable period of time. In
order to ascertain the pain and sufferings compensation, I am
guided by the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
case Satya Narain v. Jai Kishan, FAO No.709/02, date of
decision: 2.2.2007, Delhi High Court by Hon’ble Mr. Justice
Pradeep Nandrajog wherein it was held that:-“On account of
pain and suffering, suffice would it be to note that it is
difficult to measure pain and suffering in terms of a money
value, However, compensation which has to be paid must
bear some objectives co-relation with the pain and suffering.
The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering would be:
(a)Nature of injury.
(b)Body part affected.
(c)Duration of the treatment.”
HC Samarvir & ASI Krishan Kumar Vs. Amandeep Singh & Ors. Page 29 of 34
MACP Nos. 6989/16 & 5583/16; FIR No. 339/16; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
51. As already considered, the petitioner required treatment for a
period of more than three months from the date of accident owing to grievous
injuries suffered by him in the road traffic accident. Thus, he would have
undergone great physical sufferings, inconvenience and mental trauma on
account of the accident in question. Keeping in view the nature of injuries
and duration of treatment of petitioner, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is considered
reasonable towards pain & sufferings.
LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
52. As already mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence on
record to establish that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries in the
accident. Thus, he would not be able to enjoy general amenities of life after
the accident in question and his quality of life has been definitely affected. In
view of the nature of injuries and duration of his treatment, I award a notional
sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life
to the petitioner.
CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES
53. During course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for petitioner argued
that petitioner has spent considerable amount on special diet, conveyance and
attendant charges. The petitioner has failed to lead any cogent evidence on
record in respect of amount incurred by him under the aforesaid heads. At the
HC Samarvir & ASI Krishan Kumar Vs. Amandeep Singh & Ors. Page 30 of 34
MACP Nos. 6989/16 & 5583/16; FIR No. 339/16; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
same time, it cannot be overlooked that he had sustained grievous injuries in
the accident in question. Thus, he would have taken special rich protein diet
for his speedy recovery and would have also incurred considerable amount
towards conveyance charges while commuting to the concerned hospital as
OPD patient for his regular check up & follow up during the period of his
medical treatment. He would have been definitely helped by some person
either outsider or from his family, to perform his daily activities as also while
visiting the hospital during the course of his medical treatment. In these facts
and circumstances, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 15,000/-each for conveyance
charges, special diet and attendant charges to the petitioner.
Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:-
1. Loss of income/leaves Rs. 2,09,000/-
2. Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/-
3. Loss of general amenities and Rs. 50,000/-
enjoyment of life
4. Conveyance, special diet and Rs. 45,000/-
attendant charges
Total Rs. 3,54,000/-
54. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which
of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Ld. Counsel for
insurance company sought to avoid the liability of insurance company to pay
HC Samarvir & ASI Krishan Kumar Vs. Amandeep Singh & Ors. Page 31 of 34
MACP Nos. 6989/16 & 5583/16; FIR No. 339/16; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
the compensation amount on the ground that driving licence of respondent
no. 1 was found to be fake. It would be relevant to discuss, in brief, the
testimony of R3W1. As considered, Insurance company has claimed
recovery rights against R1 and R2 with its defence that the driving licence of
respondent no.1 issued from LA-Mokokchung, Nagaland was found to be
fake. The Insurance company has proved R3W1/8 in respect of driving
licence of respondent no.1. As already considered, respondent no.1 has not
tendered any valid licence as on the date of accident in his favour.
55. The Insurance company has established violation of the terms
and conditions of the insurance policy for want of valid driving licence of
respondent no.1 as on the date of accident. Accordingly, insurance company
is entitled to recovery rights against the respondents no.1 and 2 the driver and
owner who are jointly and severally liable. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF
56. In view of my findings on issues no. 1 & 2, following order is
passed after relying upon judgment “United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baby
Raksha & Ors.”, MAC APP. No. 36/2023 on 21.04.2023, on the point of
interest .
a) A sum of Rs. 3,69,000/- (including interim award amount, if
any) in MAC Petition No. 6989/16 alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum in
favour of petitioners and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the
petition i.e. 14.09.2016 till the date of its realization.
HC Samarvir & ASI Krishan Kumar Vs. Amandeep Singh & Ors. Page 32 of 34
MACP Nos. 6989/16 & 5583/16; FIR No. 339/16; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
b) A sum of Rs. 3,54,000/-(including interim award amount, if
any) in MAC Petition No. 5583/16 alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum in
favour of petitioner and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the
petition i.e. 14.09.2016 till the date of its realization.
Issue no. 3 is decided accordingly.
APPORTIONMENT
57. It is pertinent to mention here that statements of petitioner(s) in
both the cases in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP were recorded on 12.09.2022.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby ordered
that entire compensation amount in both the cases shall be immediately
released to them through their respective saving bank accounts.
58. Respondent no. 3/National Insurance Co. Ltd, being insurer of
offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award amount with SBI, Rohini
Courts branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance
company shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a for the period of delay.
Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the
entire respective amounts of petitioner(s) in their bank accounts, on
completing necessary formalities as per rules. He be further directed to keep
the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimants approach
the bank for disbursement so that the award amount starts earning interest
from the date of clearance of the cheques. Copy of this award be given dasti
HC Samarvir & ASI Krishan Kumar Vs. Amandeep Singh & Ors. Page 33 of 34
MACP Nos. 6989/16 & 5583/16; FIR No. 339/16; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
to claimants. Copy of this award be also given dasti to counsel for insurance
company for compliance. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph each,
specimen signatures, copy of bank passbooks and copy of residence proof
of both the petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court,
Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance. Form XVI & XVII
in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A. Copy of order be
also sent to concerned M.M and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP.
Signed copy of this Award be placed on the judicial record of MAC Petition
No. 5583/16 as per the rules.
Digitally signed
by RICHA
RICHA MANCHANDA
MANCHANDA Date:
Announced in the open 2025.01.04
16:12:39 +0545
Court on 04.01.2025
(RICHA MANCHANDA)
Judge MACT-2 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
HC Samarvir & ASI Krishan Kumar Vs. Amandeep Singh & Ors. Page 34 of 34
[ad_1]
Source link