advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Saturday, January 25, 2014

Accident claim - M.V.Act - Embroider - a skilled worker - his monthly income Rs.4,500/- not heavy - un married - leg was removed - Tribunal granted Rs. 4 lakhs and odd - High court enhanced to Rs.6 lakhs and odd - Apex court after taking all facts and law in to consideration, further enhanced to Rs. 14,59,100/- along with 9% interest per annum from the date of the accident till the date of realization as claimed by petitioner = SANJAY KUMAR ………APPELLANT Vs. ASHOK KUMAR & ANR. ………RESPONDENTS = 2014 ( January - Vol - 1) Judis.nic.in/ S.C./ file name =41174

 Accident claim - M.V.Act - Embroider - a skilled worker  - his monthly income Rs.4,500/- not heavy - un married - leg was removed - Tribunal granted Rs. 4 lakhs and odd - High court enhanced to Rs.6 lakhs and odd - Apex court after taking all facts and law in to consideration,  further enhanced to Rs. 14,59,100/- along with 9% interest per annum from the date of the accident till the date of realization as claimed by petitioner  =

This appeal has been filed against the final impugned judgment and
      order dated 21.03.2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New  Delhi
      in MAC Appeal  No.549  of  2007,  urging  various  legal  grounds  and
      contentions for further enhancement of compensation in the case  of  a
      motor accident involving the appellant whereby the High Court enhanced
      the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,  Delhi
      (in short ‘the  Tribunal’)  by  [pic]1,52,336/-  to  a  total  sum  of
      [pic]6,35,808/-.   The   Tribunal   had   awarded   compensation    of
      [pic]4,83,472/- under various heads along with 7% interest  per  annum
      from the date of filing of the petition till the date  of  realization
      of payment.=
The minimum wages in Delhi for a skilled worker as on  01.08.2005  was
      [pic]3589.90/- per month.  The  appellant  has  claimed  that  he  was
      earning          [pic]4,500/-  per  month  from   his   work   as   an
      embroiderer. We will accept his claim as it is not practical to expect
      a worker in the unorganized sector to provide documentary evidence  of
      his monthly income as per decision  of  this  Court  in  the  case  of
      Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance  Insurance  Company
      Limited [1]
wherein it was held as under:-


              “13. In the instant case, it  is  not  in  dispute  that  the
              appellant was aged about 35 years and was working as a coolie
              and was earning Rs. 4500/- per  month  at  the  time  of  the
              accident. This claim is reduced by the Tribunal to a  sum  of
              Rs. 3000/- only  on  the  assumption  that  the  wages  of  a
              labourer during the relevant period viz. in  the  year  2004,
              was Rs. 100/- per day. This assumption in  our  view  has  no
              basis. Before the Tribunal, though the Insurance Company  was
              served, it did not choose to appear before the court nor  did
              it repudiate the claim of the claimant. Therefore, there  was
              no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the claim  of  the
              claimant and determined the monthly earning to be a sum of Rs
              3000/- per month. Secondly, the appellant was  working  as  a
              coolie and therefore, we cannot expect  him  to  produce  any
              documentary  evidence  to  substantiate  his  claim.  In  the
              absence of any other evidence contrary to the claim  made  by
              the claimant, in our view, in the facts of the present  case,
              the Tribunal should have accepted the claim of the claimant.


              14.  We  hasten  to  add  that  in  all  cases  and  in   all
              circumstances, the Tribunal need not accept the claim of  the
              claimant in the absence of supporting material. It depends on
              the facts of each case. In a given case, if the claim made is
              so exorbitant or if the claim  made  is  contrary  to  ground
              realities, the Tribunal may not  accept  the  claim  and  may
              proceed to determine the possible income by resorting to some
              guesswork, which may include the ground realities  prevailing
              at the relevant point of time.


              15. In the present case,  the  appellant  was  working  as  a
              coolie and in and around the date of the accident,  the  wage
              of a labourer was between            Rs. 100/-  to  Rs  150/-
              per day or Rs. 4500/- per month. In our view, the  claim  was
              honest and bona fide and, therefore, there was no reason  for
              the Tribunal to have  reduced  the  monthly  earning  of  the
              appellant from                 Rs. 4500/- to Rs.  3000/-  per
              month. We, therefore, accept his statement that  his  monthly
              earning was Rs. 4500/-.”

the High Court have  erred
      in holding that the appellant’s work was of an unskilled nature.


 Further, it is necessary to award an amount under  the  head  of
      ‘loss of amenities’ also as the appellant will  definitely  deal  with
      loss of future amenities as he has lost a leg due to the accident. The
      injury has permanently disabled the appellant,  thereby  reducing  his
      enjoyment of life and the  full  pursuit  of  all  the  activities  he
      engaged  in  prior  to  the  accident.  We  thereby  award  a  sum  of
      [pic]1,00,000/-  towards  ‘loss  of   amenities’.   Along   with   the
      compensation under conventional heads, the appellant is also  entitled
      to costs of litigation as per the legal principle  laid  down  in  the
      case of Dr. Balram Prasad v. Dr. Kunal Saha & Ors.[5] 
Therefore, under
      this head, we find it just and proper to award   [pic]25,000/- towards
      costs of litigation.


      14.   Thus, the total compensation, the appellant is  entitled  to  is
      given hereunder:

     |Head of compensation      |Amount                        |
|Loss of income:           |                              |
|Loss of earning capacity  |[pic]10,20,600/- +            |
|and future prospects of   |[pic]13,500/- =               |
|income +                  |[pic]10,34,100/-              |
|Loss of earnings during   |                              |
|period of treatment       |                              |
|Medical expenses,         |      [pic]75,000/-           |
|attendant and conveyance  |                              |
|costs and future medical  |                              |
|costs                     |                              |
|Loss of marriage prospects|      [pic]75,000/-           |
|Mental agony, pain and    |    [pic]1,50,000/-           |
|suffering                 |                              |
|Loss of amenities         |    [pic]1,00,000/-           |
|Cost of litigation        |      [pic]25,000/-           |
|Total compensation:       |   [pic]14,59,100/-           |


      15.   Further, as per the case of Municipal Corporation  of  Delhi  v.
      Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association & Ors.[6],  
we  find  it  just  and
      proper to increase the interest awarded  from  7%  to  9%  per  annum.
      Hence,  the  total  compensation  the  appellant  is  entitled  to  is
      [pic]14,59,100/- along with 9% interest per annum from the date of the
      accident till the date of realization.

      16.   The Insurance Company is directed to deposit 50% of the  awarded
      amount with proportionate interest within four weeks from the date  of
      receipt of a copy of this order, after deducting the amount if already
      paid, in any of the Nationalized Bank of the choice of  the  appellant
      for a period of 3 years. During  the  said  period,  if  he  wants  to
      withdraw a portion or entire deposited amount for his personal or  any
      other expenses, including development of his  asset,  then  he  is  at
      liberty to file application before the Tribunal  for  release  of  the
      deposited amount, which may be considered by it and  pass  appropriate
      order in this regard.

            The rest of 50% amount awarded with proportionate interest shall
      be paid to the appellant/claimant by way of a demand draft within four
      weeks. The Insurance Company is further directed to submit  compliance
      report before this court within six weeks.

      17.     The   appeal    is    accordingly    allowed.     No    costs.
2014 ( January - Vol - 1) Judis.nic.in/ S.C./ file name  =41174

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, V. GOPALA GOWDA
                      
NON REPORTABLE


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 896   OF 2014
                  (Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 21303 OF 2013)




    SANJAY KUMAR                          ………APPELLANT


                                     Vs.


    ASHOK KUMAR & ANR.                  ………RESPONDENTS



                               J U D G M E N T




      V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.


           Leave granted.


      2.  This appeal has been filed against the final impugned judgment and
      order dated 21.03.2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New  Delhi
      in MAC Appeal  No.549  of  2007,  urging  various  legal  grounds  and
      contentions for further enhancement of compensation in the case  of  a
      motor accident involving the appellant whereby the High Court enhanced
      the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,  Delhi
      (in short ‘the  Tribunal’)  by  [pic]1,52,336/-  to  a  total  sum  of
      [pic]6,35,808/-.   The   Tribunal   had   awarded   compensation    of
      [pic]4,83,472/- under various heads along with 7% interest  per  annum
      from the date of filing of the petition till the date  of  realization
      of payment.


      3.    The brief facts of the case are given hereunder:
           The appellant, Sanjay Kumar  received  injuries  in  a  roadside
      accident on 28.09.2005 due to the rash and negligent  driving  of  the
      Truck No.HR-38D-9546, the offending vehicle.  The  appellant  remained
      under treatment from 26.10.2005 to  10.12.2005  and  due  to  injuries
      sustained, his right leg above the knee had to be  amputated.
As  per
      Entry 18 in Part II of Schedule I of the Workmen’s  Compensation  Act,
      1923, the loss of earning capacity was assessed  at  70%  due  to  the
      permanent disability suffered by the appellant  on  account  of  post-
      traumatic amputation of his right leg above the  knee.
The  appellant
      was employed as an  embroidery  worker  and  claimed  compensation  of
      [pic]15 lakhs from the respondents. 
Respondent No.1 is the  owner  and
      respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle.
The appellant
      examined two witnesses in support of  his  claim  and  documents  were
      taken on record as evidence. PW-1 Sushil Kumar, the record  clerk  who
      filed  treatment  record  and   MLC   as   Ex.PW-1/A   and   Ex.PW-1/B
      respectively, and, PW-2 Sanjay Kumar, the appellant  himself,  and  he
      filed his treatment record and bills as  Exs.PW-2/1  to  PW-2/19,  his
      permanent disability certificate Ex.PW-2/20 and concession certificate
      Ex.PW-2/21. The respondents did not lead any evidence.


      4. The Tribunal held that the accident took place due to the rash  and
      negligent driving of the offending vehicle as a result  of  which  the
      appellant sustained injuries and awarded pecuniary  as  well  as  non-
      pecuniary  damages.
The  compensation  was  calculated  by  assigning
      minimum wages at [pic]3166/- per  month,  of  which  loss  of  earning
      capacity was calculated at 70% which comes to [pic]2216/-  per  month,
      i.e. [pic]26,592/- per annum. 
Multiplier of 16 was taken. 
A  lump  sum
      compensation of [pic]8000/- was given to the appellant under the  head
      of ‘medical expenses’. 
Hence, the total pecuniary  compensation  given
      was [pic]4,33,472/-. 
A sum of [pic]50,000/- was given as non-pecuniary
      damages on account of  mental  pain  and  agony  and  loss  of  future
      enjoyment of life suffered by  him.  
Thus,  a  total  compensation  of
      [pic]4,83,472/- was awarded to the appellant with interest  @  7%  per
      annum from the date of  filing  of  the  petition  till  the  date  of
      realization.  
Both  the  respondents  were  held  to  be  jointly  and
      severally liable to pay the compensation but respondent No.2 being the
      insurer was held to have the primary obligation to pay compensation on
      behalf of the insured and was directed to  deposit  the  award  amount
      within one month from the date of the order.


      5. Aggrieved by the order of the  Tribunal,  the  appellant  filed  an
      appeal in the High Court asking for enhancement of the compensation on
      the  ground  that  the  Tribunal  ought  to  have   awarded   enhanced
      compensation on the basis of evidence adduced. The contentions of  the
      appellant will be taken up in detail at a later stage.
The High  Court
      enhanced   the   compensation   to   [pic]6,35,808/-    by    awarding
      [pic]5,42,808/- under the head ‘loss of future  earning  capacity’  by
      taking a  multiplier  of  18.  Further,  [pic]25,000/-  as  conveyance
      charges and [pic]10,000/- as Attendant charges were also awarded.  The
      compensation of [pic] 50,000/- awarded under the head ‘Mental pain and
      agony’ and        [pic]8,000/- for medical bills  as  awarded  by  the
      Tribunal was maintained as it is. Therefore, the High Court awarded  a
      sum of [pic]1,52,336/- over and above the compensation awarded by  the
      Tribunal at the same rate of  interest  i.e.  7%  per  annum  and  the
      respondent No.2 was directed to pay this enhanced amount with interest
      in favour of the appellant within four weeks from the date of  receipt
      of copy of the order.


      6.    Not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the  High  Court,
      the appellant  has  appealed  to  this  Court,  urging  various  legal
      contentions in support of further enhancement of the compensation.


      7.    The learned counsel  for  the  appellant  has  argued  that  the
      appellant was employed as an embroiderer and that it is a skilled  job
      and he used to earn [pic]4500/- per month. Further, he is entitled  to
      compensation against loss of future prospects in income and  that  the
      compensation under the head of ‘pain and suffering’ should not be less
      than [pic]2 lacs as the permanent  disability  is  70%  and  that  his
      marriage  prospects  have  been  greatly  diminished  because  of  the
      accident and he should be awarded compensation under the  head,  ‘loss
      of marriage prospects’ as well. It was also contended  that  the  High
      Court was not justified in not awarding compensation for the  loss  of
      earning for at least 3 months during the appellant’s treatment period.
      Further, on the point of interest, it  was  contended  that  the  High
      Court should have enhanced the rate of interest  from  7%  to  9%  per
      annum.


      8.    We have heard the rival legal contentions advanced on behalf  of
      the parties. In our considered view, the appellant is entitled  to  be
      awarded compensation based on the wages for a skilled worker, as he is
      an embroiderer and the same cannot be considered as an unskilled work.
      The minimum wages in Delhi for a skilled worker as on  01.08.2005  was
      [pic]3589.90/- per month.  The  appellant  has  claimed  that  he  was
      earning          [pic]4,500/-  per  month  from   his   work   as   an
      embroiderer. We will accept his claim as it is not practical to expect
      a worker in the unorganized sector to provide documentary evidence  of
      his monthly income as per decision  of  this  Court  in  the  case  of
      Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance  Insurance  Company
      Limited [1], wherein it was held as under:-


              “13. In the instant case, it  is  not  in  dispute  that  the
              appellant was aged about 35 years and was working as a coolie
              and was earning Rs. 4500/- per  month  at  the  time  of  the
              accident. This claim is reduced by the Tribunal to a  sum  of
              Rs. 3000/- only  on  the  assumption  that  the  wages  of  a
              labourer during the relevant period viz. in  the  year  2004,
              was Rs. 100/- per day. This assumption in  our  view  has  no
              basis. Before the Tribunal, though the Insurance Company  was
              served, it did not choose to appear before the court nor  did
              it repudiate the claim of the claimant. Therefore, there  was
              no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the claim  of  the
              claimant and determined the monthly earning to be a sum of Rs
              3000/- per month. Secondly, the appellant was  working  as  a
              coolie and therefore, we cannot expect  him  to  produce  any
              documentary  evidence  to  substantiate  his  claim.  In  the
              absence of any other evidence contrary to the claim  made  by
              the claimant, in our view, in the facts of the present  case,
              the Tribunal should have accepted the claim of the claimant.


              14.  We  hasten  to  add  that  in  all  cases  and  in   all
              circumstances, the Tribunal need not accept the claim of  the
              claimant in the absence of supporting material. It depends on
              the facts of each case. In a given case, if the claim made is
              so exorbitant or if the claim  made  is  contrary  to  ground
              realities, the Tribunal may not  accept  the  claim  and  may
              proceed to determine the possible income by resorting to some
              guesswork, which may include the ground realities  prevailing
              at the relevant point of time.


              15. In the present case,  the  appellant  was  working  as  a
              coolie and in and around the date of the accident,  the  wage
              of a labourer was between            Rs. 100/-  to  Rs  150/-
              per day or Rs. 4500/- per month. In our view, the  claim  was
              honest and bona fide and, therefore, there was no reason  for
              the Tribunal to have  reduced  the  monthly  earning  of  the
              appellant from                 Rs. 4500/- to Rs.  3000/-  per
              month. We, therefore, accept his statement that  his  monthly
              earning was Rs. 4500/-.”




      Thus, in the present case, a monthly income of            [pic]4,500/-
      as claimed by  the  appellant  for  his  work  as  an  embroiderer  is
      reflective of ground realities and is not exorbitant by  any  standard
      and in the interest of justice, we should accept his  claim.  Further,
      he was also not cross-examined on the aspect of the nature of his work
      as an embroiderer and both the Tribunal and the High Court have  erred
      in holding that the appellant’s work was of an unskilled nature.


      9. ‘Loss of future prospects’ should be added to  this  amount  as  it
      cannot be  accepted  that  an  embroiderer  will  not  have  a  future
      increment in income.
As per the  case of Sarla Verma & Ors.  v.  Delhi
      Transport Corporation & Anr.[2],
 keeping in mind the young age of  the
      appellant, he is entitled to 50% of his income as future  increase  in
      income ([pic]4,500/-  +  2250/-  =  [pic]6750/-).   
We  will  apply  a
      multiplier of 18 as taken by the High Court in the  impugned  judgment
      and as per Sarla  Verma’s  case  (supra).  The  appellant’s  permanent
      disability and loss of earning capacity was assessed  at  70%  and  we
      will not interfere with that. Hence, the total amount of  compensation
      due to loss of earning capacity along with future prospects in  income
      will come to                 [pic]10,20,600/-[[pic]6,750 x 70/100 x 12
      x 18].


      10. Further, in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar  &  Anr.[3],  this
      Court has succinctly explained the guidelines and heads  for  awarding
      compensation in cases of disability  due  to  a  motor  accident.  The
      relevant paragraphs are extracted below:


             “6. The heads under which compensation is awarded  in  personal
             injury cases are the following:
             Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
             (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines,
             transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
             (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would
             have made had he not been injured, comprising:
                  (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
                  (b) Loss of  future  earnings  on  account  of  permanent
                  disability.
             (iii) Future medical expenses.
             Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
             (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of
             the injuries.
             (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
             (vi)  Loss  of  expectation  of  life  (shortening  of   normal
             longevity).
             In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be  awarded
             only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only  in  serious
             cases of injury,  where  there  is  specific  medical  evidence
             corroborating the evidence of the claimant,  that  compensation
             will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v)  and
             (vi)  relating  to  loss  of  future  earnings  on  account  of
             permanent  disability,  future  medical   expenses,   loss   of
             amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage)  and  loss  of
             expectation of life.


             7. Assessment of pecuniary damages under  Item  (i)  and  under
             Item (ii)(a) do  not  pose  much  difficulty  as  they  involve
             reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from  the
             evidence. Award under the head of future medical  expenses—Item
             (iii)—depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for
             further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary
             damages—Items (iv), (v) and (vi)—involves determination of lump
             sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature
             of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the  claimant  and
             the  effect  thereof  on  the  future  life  of  the  claimant.
             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).”


      11. The appellant has further contended  that  he  should  be  awarded
      compensation  for  loss  of  income  suffered  during  the  period  of
      treatment i.e. 26.10.2005 to 10.12.2005. As the accident took place on
      28.09.2005, this comes to a period of around 3 months. Keeping in view
      the principles espoused in the aforesaid judgment, we hereby award  an
      amount of [pic]13,500/- for this period      ([pic]4,500 x  3)  taking
      the monthly income of          [pic]4,500/-, thus, bringing the  total
      compensation  under  the   broad   head   of   loss   of   income   to
      [pic]10,34,100/-.


      12. Now, we will assess  the  compensation  awarded  under  the  other
      heads.  With  respect  to  medical  expenses,  attendant  charges  and
      conveyance charges, as well as possible future medical costs, we  will
      award a total sum  of  [pic]75,000/-  as  he  has  suffered  permanent
      disability due to amputation of his right leg. The appellant will need
      assistance in order to travel and move around, and  regular  check-ups
      and will most likely use a crutch to walk, all  of  which  will  incur
      expenses.   On the point of loss of marriage prospects, we  feel  that
      it is a major loss, keeping in mind the young age of the appellant and
      the High Court has gravely erred in not awarding adequate compensation
      separately under this head and  instead  clubbed  it  under  ‘loss  of
      future enjoyment of life’ and ‘pain and suffering’. We  thereby  award
      [pic]75,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects. Further, as per  the
      case of Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd.[4],  wherein  the
      appellant suffered amputation of the leg, this Court awarded a sum  of
               [pic]1,50,000/- towards ‘pain and suffering’  caused  due  to
      amputation of the leg. Therefore, towards ‘mental agony and  pain  and
      suffering’, we award a sum of [pic]1,50,000/-  as  the  appellant  has
      suffered tremendously due to the accident in terms  of  the  pain  and
      suffering involved  in  the  amputation.  Loss  of  a  limb  causes  a
      profusion of distress and the appellant has to deal with the same  for
      the rest of his life. We feel it is justified to award  the  aforesaid
      amount under this head as he might have to  deal  with  discrimination
      and stigma in society due to the fact that he is an amputee.


      13.   Further, it is necessary to award an amount under  the  head  of
      ‘loss of amenities’ also as the appellant will  definitely  deal  with
      loss of future amenities as he has lost a leg due to the accident. The
      injury has permanently disabled the appellant,  thereby  reducing  his
      enjoyment of life and the  full  pursuit  of  all  the  activities  he
      engaged  in  prior  to  the  accident.  We  thereby  award  a  sum  of
      [pic]1,00,000/-  towards  ‘loss  of   amenities’.   Along   with   the
      compensation under conventional heads, the appellant is also  entitled
      to costs of litigation as per the legal principle  laid  down  in  the
      case of Dr. Balram Prasad v. Dr. Kunal Saha & Ors.[5] Therefore, under
      this head, we find it just and proper to award   [pic]25,000/- towards
      costs of litigation.


      14.   Thus, the total compensation, the appellant is  entitled  to  is
      given hereunder:




      |Head of compensation      |Amount                        |
|Loss of income:           |                              |
|Loss of earning capacity  |[pic]10,20,600/- +            |
|and future prospects of   |[pic]13,500/- =               |
|income +                  |[pic]10,34,100/-              |
|Loss of earnings during   |                              |
|period of treatment       |                              |
|Medical expenses,         |      [pic]75,000/-           |
|attendant and conveyance  |                              |
|costs and future medical  |                              |
|costs                     |                              |
|Loss of marriage prospects|      [pic]75,000/-           |
|Mental agony, pain and    |    [pic]1,50,000/-           |
|suffering                 |                              |
|Loss of amenities         |    [pic]1,00,000/-           |
|Cost of litigation        |      [pic]25,000/-           |
|Total compensation:       |   [pic]14,59,100/-           |




      15.   Further, as per the case of Municipal Corporation  of  Delhi  v.
      Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association & Ors.[6],
we  find  it  just  and
      proper to increase the interest awarded  from  7%  to  9%  per  annum.
      Hence,  the  total  compensation  the  appellant  is  entitled  to  is
      [pic]14,59,100/- along with 9% interest per annum from the date of the
      accident till the date of realization.


      16.   The Insurance Company is directed to deposit 50% of the  awarded
      amount with proportionate interest within four weeks from the date  of
      receipt of a copy of this order, after deducting the amount if already
      paid, in any of the Nationalized Bank of the choice of  the  appellant
      for a period of 3 years. During  the  said  period,  if  he  wants  to
      withdraw a portion or entire deposited amount for his personal or  any
      other expenses, including development of his  asset,  then  he  is  at
      liberty to file application before the Tribunal  for  release  of  the
      deposited amount, which may be considered by it and  pass  appropriate
      order in this regard.

            The rest of 50% amount awarded with proportionate interest shall
      be paid to the appellant/claimant by way of a demand draft within four
      weeks. The Insurance Company is further directed to submit  compliance
      report before this court within six weeks.

      17.     The   appeal    is    accordingly    allowed.     No    costs.


                                  ………………………………………………………………………J.
                           [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA]


                                               ………………………………………………………………………J.
                                  [V. GOPALA GOWDA]
      New Delhi,
      January 24, 2014
-----------------------
[1]    (2011) 13 SCC 236
[2]    (2009) 6 SCC 121
[3]    (2011) 1 SCC 343
[4]    (2011) 10 SCC 683
[5]    (2013) 13 SCALE 1
[6]    (2011) 14 SCC 481


-----------------------
17




No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.