Delhi High Court
Tarandeep Singh Anand vs Asgar Khan & Ors on 18 December, 2015
Author: Pratibha Rani
$~24 & 25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : December 18, 2015
+ MAC.APP. 35/2012
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.D.D.Singh and Mr.Navdeep
Singh, Advocates.
versus
TARANDEEP SINGH ANAND & Ors. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Neha Kapoor, Advocate for R-1
with R-1 in person.
AND
+ MAC.APP. 285/2012 & CM No.4817/2012
TARANDEEP SINGH ANAND ..... Appellant
Through: Ms.Neha Kapoor, Advocate with
appellant in person.
versus
ASGAR KHAN & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.D.D.Singh and Mr.Navdeep
Singh, Advocates for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
PRATIBHA RANI, J. (ORAL)
CM No.4817/2012 in MAC.APP No.285/2012
1. For the reasons stated in the application, 53 days' delay in filing the
appeal is condoned.
2. Application stands disposed of.
MAC.APP.No.35/2012 & MAC.APP.No.285/2012
1. These two appeals arise out of the award dated 12.10.2011 passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a
compensation of ₹ 10,58,101/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from
the date of filing of this petition till its realization was awarded to Tarandeep
Singh Anand who suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident which
occurred on 11.2.2006.
2. On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that the
claimant/injured suffered injuries while he was going on his motor cycle and
was hit by the TSR No. DL IR G 3713 which was being driven in a rash and
negligent manner by Asgar Khan, the driver. The learned Tribunal further
observed that the injured was earning ₹1.5 lakhs per annum. He had
remained confined to bed for about six months and had also spent on
conveyance, special diet. There was loss of income as he could not perform
his job. The learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of ₹10,58,101/-
to the claimant alognwith interest @ 7.5 % p.a. from the date of filing the
petition.
3. For the sake of convenience, the Appellant in MAC.APP.35/2012
shall be referred to as the Insurance Company, whereas the Appellants in
MAC. APP. 285/2012 shall be referred to as the claimants.
4. The finding on negligence has not been disputed by the learned
counsel for the Insurance Company at the time of hearing of the appeal.
Even no appeal has been preferred by the owner/driver of the offending
vehicle, hence, the same has attained finality.
5. On behalf of the Insurance Company, Mr.D.D.Singh, Advocate has
submitted that the claimant is seeking enhancement of the compensation in
cross appeal bearing MAC.APP.No.285/2012 on account of diminishing
memory and constant headache and has tried to connect the head injury with
the accident dated 11.2.2006. Referring to the statement of PW-3, Dr. K.K.
Kumra, DDU Hospital, Mr.D.D.Singh, Advocate has submitted that in the
said disability certificate Ex.PW1/2, the percentage of the disability has been
shown as 46% whereas Dr. Kumra specifically stated that disability as per
the certificate is only 6% and the said certificate has been tampered with.
While referring to the another disability certificate showing the disability to
the extent of 24% it has been submitted that the same has been issued by
RTRM Hospital by the doctor who has not treated the claimant and thus
could not have certified the disability. The disability in this case being 6% as
per Dr.K.K.Kumra, the treating Doctor, the Court should have awarded the
compensation in view of that certificate only.
6. Learned counsel for the insurance company has contended that before
the Tribunal there was no evidence to prove that the claimant suffered head
injury. During pendency of appeal, the application under Order XLI Rule 27
was allowed by this Court. Dr.Rajesh Acharya, Senior Consultant,
Department of Neurosurgery was examined on 19.12.2013 who has made
his statement without producing the record. Even otherwise the prescription
Ex.AW1/A of Dr.Rajesh Acharya reflect that the head injury was suffered
on 12.01.2006 whereas the date of accident in this case is 11.02.2006 which
shows that the head injury had nothing to do with the compensation claimed
in this petition which was suffered a month prior to suffering injuries in this
accident.
7. Learned counsel for the insurance company has also urged before this
Court that the claimant in this case had worked just for about three months
before suffering injuries in this accident. In that circumstance, the learned
Tribunal should have granted compensation calculating the same as per
minimum wages payable to a matriculate. He has submitted that the
claimant has not placed on record any document regarding his qualification
as 12th pass or having acquired any skill, hence the compensation awarded
by the learned Tribunal being exorbitant, be reduced.
8. Ms.Neha Kapoor, Advocate appearing on behalf of the claimant has
vehemently urged that it is a case where the claimant who was just 21 years
old at the time of accident had not only suffered disfigurement of face but
also due to head injury he is suffering from diminishing memory. The
claimant was employed as Executive Operation in a Call Centre i.e. Global
Ventedge Pvt. Ltd. on annual package of ₹1.5 lakhs. He had just worked for
about three months when he met with an accident. For the job of Executive
Operation, it is necessary that the person should be fluent in English with the
capacity to bear the responsibility as Executive Operation.
9. Learned counsel for the claimant has contended that no tampering was
done with the disability certificate issued by DDU Hospital. The disability
certificate issued by RTRM Hospital was obtained under orders of this
Court in view of the dispute raised by the Insurance Company about the
percentage of disability suffered by the claimant. Dr.J.P.Singh from RTRM
hospital has been examined as PW-5 and duly cross examined by the
insurance company. Now it is not open to the insurance company to dispute
the credibility of the disability certificate or the extent of disability certified
by RTRM Hospital and duly proved by examining Dr.J.P.Singh. Further the
father of the claimant himself is an old and handicapped person as has been
brought to the notice of learned Tribunal by producing disability certificate
of the father of the claimant.
10. In this case, the main question to be determined is about the nature
and extent of the injuries as well the extent of disability suffered by the
claimant and consequent loss of amenities of life and future prospects. The
main contention of the insurance company revolves around the disability
certificate Ex.PW1/2 issued by DDU Hospital, disability certificate
Ex.PW5/A issued by RTRM Hospital as well as the date of suffering the
head injury i.e. prior to this accident or during this accident. For this
purpose, it is necessary to first refer to the testimony of PW-3
Dr.K.K.Kumra, CMO (NFSG), Ortho Department, DDU Hospital and PW-5
Dr.J.P.Singh, Junior Specialist (Ortho), RTRM Hospital and then to the
medical treatment record filed by the claimant. Both the doctors i.e. PW-3
Dr.K.K.Kumra and PW-5 Dr.J.P.Singh are specialised in Ortho. No Neuro
Surgeon was member of the Board that issued the disability certificate.
Thus, the disability caused due to head injury is not certified.
11. During pendency of these appeals, Dr.Rajesh Acharya, Senior
Consultant, Deptt. of Neurosurgery, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital has been
permitted to be examined, whose statement shall be referred to hereinafter.
12. PW-3 Dr.K.K.Kumra, CMO (NFSG), Ortho Department, DDU
Hospital has made statement to the following effect:-
'Being member of the Medical Board I had examined the
petitioner, Sh.Tarandeep Singh Anand and had assessed his
permanent disability.
I have brought the record from the hospital. I have also
seen the photocopy of disability certificate Ex.PW1/2.
The permanent disability of the said patient as per my
examination and our record, is 60% in relation to left upper
limb, it being a case of united fracture olecranon with left
elbow joint stiffness.
Said disability was never opined as 46% as is reflected in
Ex.PW1/2. The original disability certificate was issued for
disability of 06% as per our record and not for 46%. There
appears to be some manipulation in that context regarding the
percentage of the disability in the said photocopy of disability
certificate.
The functional disability of the patient regarding loss in
earning capacity in the light of the said permanent disability
would be negligible, as per my opinion.'
13. PW-5 Dr.J.P.Singh, Junior Specialist (Ortho) RTRM Hospital has
stated that he had examined the claimant on 25.02.2010 and proved the
disability certificate as Ex.PW5/A which bears his signature at point-B. He
has further stated that the claimant has a disability of 24% for a period of
two years from the date of issue of disability certificate and that the
disability of the claimant is temporary and his condition may or may not
improve in future.
14. Dr.Rajesh Acharya, Senior Consultant, Deptt. of Neurosurgery, Sir
Ganga Ram Hospital has made statement to the following effect :-
'Mr.Taran Deep Singh Anand, appellant is my patient, he still
comes to me occasionally in relation to his treatment. He
sustained head injury after road accident on 11.02.2006.
I have brought the medical record of the appellant since
2006. He was operated for right fronto temporal extra dural
hematoma on 12.02.2006. He was successfully operated and he
was discharged on 17.02.2006. At the time of surgery, he was
drowsy and it was not possible for us to access the condition of
his memory. After the operation he was fully conscious, alert
and moving all four limbs.
The present status of the appellant is that he is irritated
and has impaired memory. In my opinion, the cause of
impaired memory is the head injury sustained during the
aforesaid accident. In my opinion generally in such cases,
there are not chances of recovery.'
15. In the prescription slip Ex.AW1/A dated 16.01.2012 on the right side
at the top, the doctor has written 'FTC Head Injury (12.1.2006)'. Thus, this
is the document on the basis of which the learned counsel for the insurance
company is trying to claim that the head injury was suffered on 12.01.2006
whereas the date of accident is 11.02.2006.
16. I have perused the entire treatment record filed before the learned
Tribunal. Sh.Tarandeep Singh Anand - the claimant when filed his affidavit
as PW-1 also tendered following documents :-
'Ex.PW1/1 - Salary certificate
Ex.PW1/2 - Disability certificate
Ex.PW1/3 - Copy of FIR
Ex.PW1/4 - Copy of site plan
Ex.PW1/5 - Copy of seizure memo of TSR
Ex.PW1/6 - Mechanical Inspection report of motorcycle
Ex.PW1/7 - Policy of offending vehicle
Ex.PW1/8 - Fitness certificate of the offending vehicle
Ex.PW1/9 - Challan receipt of the offending vehicle
Ex.PW1/10 - MLC of the claimant
Ex.PW1/11 - Photographs of the claimant
Ex.PW1/12 - Medical bill amounting to ₹90,000/- of Sir
Ganga Ram Hospital
Ex.PW1/13 - Discharge summary
Ex.PW1/14 - Hospital bills, chemist bills as well of X-ray
bills
Ex.PW1/15 - Disability certificate of father of the
petitioner
Ex.PW1/16 - Certificate issued by Dr.Rajesh Acharya
showing that Claimant was under treatment
for about one year
Ex.PW1/17 - Medical bills
Ex.PW1/17A- Prescriptions
Ex.PW1/18 - Prescriptions
Ex.PW1/19 - Copy of Ration Card'
17. With a view to ascertain as to when the head injury had been suffered,
I would like to refer to the following documents:-
(i) Ex.C-1 is the copy of the chargesheet alongwith its annexures filed
before the Tribunal by Investigating Officer, PS Hari Nagar in case FIR
No.77/2006 under Sections 279/338 IPC & 3/181 MV Act. In the
chargesheet, Asgar Khan - Driver of the offending vehicle has been shown
as accused and Tarandeep to be the injured. The date and time of the
accident as mentioned in the FIR is 11.02.20016 at about 10.00 pm.
(ii) As per the letter addressed to CMO, DDU Hospital by ASI Zora
Singh - the Investigating Officer, he visited DDU Hospital to record the
statement of the injured but at 10.50 pm the injured was declared 'unfit for
statement'.
(iii) The MLC of the claimant/injured prepared at DDU Hospital reveals
that he was brought to the hospital on 11.02.2006 at 10.15 pm by CAT-214
and details of all the injuries suffered by Tarandeep Singh are referred on the
MLC which includes the injury on the head. MLC also bear endorsement
dated 11.02.2006 that patient absconded from Casualty on 11.02.2006 at
11.00 pm.
(iv) From the receipt Ex.PW1/14 it is proved that after taking the patient
Tarandeep Singh from DDU Hospital, the family brought him to Kukreja
Hospital & Heart Centre Pvt. Ltd., Rajouri Garden at about 11 p.m. on
11.02.2006. The receipt Ex.PW1/14 is in respect of Ambulance Charges,
CT Scan Consultation Fees as well as Emergency and Admission Charges
and after realising the gravity of the situation and the nature of the head
injury suffered by the patient Tarandeep Singh, to save his life, the family
shifted the patient to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital which fact finds corroboration
from the discharge summary Ex.PW1/13 on which date of admission is
recorded as 12.02.2006.
(v) On 13.02.2006 the Investigating Officer visited Sir Ganga Ram
Hospital but again the patient was declared unfit for statement and
ultimately the FIR was recorded on 13.02.2006 on the basis of statement of
Vijay Kumar - eye witness.
(vi) The discharge summary dated 17.02.2006 Ex.PW1/13 records the
clinical history as under:-
'20-year male admitted with alleged H/O of RTA at around
10:30 pm on 11.02.06 followed by sustained head injury and
injury to left upper limb. H/O LOC and Nasal bleed present.
No H/O seizure, ENT bleed and vomiting. Initially he was
managed in some other hospital, now shifted to SGRH for
further management. CT head plain was done which revealed
right fronto tempral EDH with mass effect.'
The claimant in his affidavit has stated that they had to seek early
discharge from Sir Ganga Ram Hospital as they were unable to afford the
costly treatment in that hospital.
Here at this stage, it is also necessary to mention that the discharge
summary Ex.PW1/13 prepared on 17.02.2006 is by Department of
Neurosurgery, Unit-I, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital headed by Dr.A.D.Sehgal.
Dr.Rajesh Acharya, who has been examined before this Court on 19.12.2013
as a witness, is from Unit-I of Department of Neurosurgery, Sir Ganga Ram
Hospital. Dr.Rajesh Acharya was member of the team of Neuro Surgeons of
Unit-I who conducted surgery on head of the claimant for the injuries
suffered by him in the accident on 11.02.20016.
(vii) As per the prescription slip Ex.PW1/17A, the claimant apart from
head injury had also suffered fracture olecranon with left elbow joint
stiffness and remained under treatment of Dr.V.K.Nijhawan, M.S. (Ortho).
(viii) As per the prescription slip Ex.PW1/18 the claimant has also
remained under treatment of Dr.Rajesh Acharya right from the date of
suffering the head injury till Dr.Rajesh Acharya was examined as a witness
during the pendency of these appeals.
18. The various prescription slips and consistent treatment record from
Sir Ganga Ram Hospital suggests that mention of date of accident as
12.01.2006 on the prescription Ex.AW1/A might have been wrongly given
by the claimant/patient due to diminishing memory.
19. Much emphasis has been laid by learned counsel for the
appellant/insurance company on the disability certificate Ex.PW1/2 issued
by DDU Hospital claiming that it has been issued by the hospital that treated
the claimant. This contention is noted here to be rejected for the simple
reason that from DDU Hospital the patient was taken in Ambulance at about
11.00 pm which is noted in the MLC itself and after getting the necessary
investigation done at Kukreja Hospital & Heart Centre Pvt. Ltd., the
patient/claimant was taken to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital for specialised
treatment. Thus, it does not lie in the mouth of insurance company to claim
that it is a case of suffering head injury prior to the accident or that
Dr.Rajesh Acharya being not the treating doctor, his statement is of no
significance. Rather, it is a case where the patient/claimant was initially
taken by the police in CAT-214 to DDU Hospital and all the injuries
including head injury find mentioned in the MLC. From the photographs
placed on record before the learned Tribunal and treatment record from Sir
Ganga Ram Hospital, it is established that the claimant suffered injuries on
his head and elbow and had undergone surgeries at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital.
All the injuries were suffered by the claimant in the accident that had taken
place on 11.02.2006.
20. It is surprising that despite life threatening injuries suffered by the
claimant at young age of 20-21 years, he had been certified to be suffering
disability to the extent of 6% by the DDU Hospital with no reference to the
damage caused to the nervous system of the claimant on account of head
injury.
21. It may be noted here that the claimant was directed to appear in the
Court to assess his present condition. He is suffering from diminishing
memory as noted at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and All India Institute of
Medical Sciences. Thus, to ascertain the percentage of disability, the
disability certificates obtained from DDU Hospital or RTRM Hospital and
the treatment record of DDU Hospital where he was removed by police in
CAT-214 do not reflect the disability due to head injury. The investigation
carried out at Kukreja Hospital and Heart Centre where he was removed in
Ambulance by his family and also at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital is sufficient to
ascertain the nature and extent of injuries suffered by him and damage
caused due to head injury which has made him dependent on his family at
young age of 20-21 years.
22. I have no hesitation to hold that statement of Dr.Rajesh Acharya,
Senior Consultant, Department of Neurosurgery, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital
has to be given due weight as he had been treating the claimant right from
12.02.2006 when he was shifted in that hospital in a critical condition and
also performed the surgery. The claimant is undergoing treatment at Sir
Ganga Ram Hospital from Dr.Rajesh Acharya even as on date.
23. The next question to be considered is how far the learned Tribunal is
justified in assessing the income of the claimant. In this regard, it is
sufficient to note that PW-4 Sh.Dinesh Kumar Rathor from Global
Ventedge Pvt. Ltd. had been examined by the claimant who had proved the
appointment letter and income certificate of the claimant as PW4/A and B.
If the claimant could not work for longer duration in that company, he
cannot be blamed for that. It is not that at that young age, he quit the job of
his own. Rather it is a case where due to the extensive head injury and
injury on his hand, he could not resume his duties and perhaps by the time
he was able to stand on his legs, vacancy might have been filled.
24. In Kavita v. Deepak & O₹, Civil Appeal No.5945/2012 decided on
22.08.2012, the Supreme Court laid down that an attempt should always be
made to award adequate compensation not only for physical injury and
treatment but also for the loss of earning and inability to lead a normal life
and enjoy amenities, which would have been enjoyed but for the disability
caused due to the accident.
25. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr., 2011 (1) SCC 343, the
Supreme Court brought out the difference between permanent disability and
functional disability resulting in the loss of earning capacity. It was laid
down that the compensation on account of loss of earning capacity has to be
granted in accordance to the nature of job undertaken by the victim of motor
accident. Paras 11 and 14 of the report are extracted hereunder:
"11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect
of the permanently disability on the earning capacity of the
injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in
terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in
terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by
applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss
of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on
appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find
that percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the
permanent disability, is approximately the same as the
percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the
Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of
compensation (see for example, the decisions of this Court in
Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2010
(10) SCC 254 and Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance
Co. Ltd. 2010 (10) SCC 341.
xxxxxxx
14. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the
permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed
around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the
actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred
percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the
other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service,
the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment
and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his
clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity
will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor
60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact,
there may not be any need to award any compensation under
the head of 'loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in
government service, though he may be awarded compensation
under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing
his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in
service, but may not found suitable for discharging the duties
attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on
account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some
other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which
case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of
future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning
capacity."
26. In the case Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance
Company Limited, (2010) 10 SCC 254, the Supreme Court dealt with the
case of disability of an engineering student. The Supreme Court observed
that while awarding compensation in personal injury cases, an attempt
should be made to put the injured in the same position as he was as far as
money is concerned. In para 9 of the report, the Supreme Court held as
under:
"9. We do not intend to review in detail state of authorities in
relation to assessment of all damages for personal injury.
Suffice it to say that the basis of assessment of all damages for
personal injury is compensation. The whole idea is to put the
claimant in the same position as he was insofar as money can.
Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in
mind that the victim has done no wrong; he has suffered at the
hands of the wrongdoer and the court must take care to give
him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered."
27. In another case Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S.
Dhananka & O₹, (2009) 6 SCC 1, the Supreme Court emphasized that
cases of serious injuries in motor vehicle accident are worse than the death
cases because the victim and his family suffers throughout life. Para 90 of
the report is extracted hereunder:-
"90. At the same time we often find that a person injured in an
accident leaves his family in greater distress vis-à-vis a family
in a case of death. In the latter case, the initial shock gives way
to a feeling of resignation and acceptance, and in time, compels
the family to move on. The case of an injured and disabled
person is, however, more pitiable and the feeling of hurt,
helplessness, despair and often destitution enures every day.
The support that is needed by a severely handicapped person
comes at an enormous price, physical, financial and emotional,
not only on the victim but even more so on his family and
attendants and the stress saps their energy and destroys their
equanimity."
28. The claimant is the only child of his parents. He had not been in any
job after suffering injuries in this accident. His father is not only old but
also disabled as is brought on record from the disability certificate. Even in
the Court on each date of hearing the disability of the father of the claimant
can be seen. He must be hoping his son to support him in this age but the
destiny played a cruel joke. Now it is other way round and parents are
taking care of their young son due to his diminishing memory and inability
to earn livelihood for himself. When the claimant appeared before the
Court, he was questioned about his daily routine and it was revealed that he
is assisting his father in attending the customers at their shop selling cold
drinks, snacks etc.
29. Learned counsel for the claimant has placed on record the treatment
record of the claimant to show that the claimant is under continuous
treatment for the head injury suffered in this accident.
30. From the medical record of the claimant from Sir Ganga Ram
Hospital as well the follow up treatment from various other hospital and
interaction with the claimant in Court, it is established that after suffering
the head injury in the accident on 11.02.2006, the claimant is not able to
lead a normal life. It is informed that claimant is the only son and both his
parents are not even able to walk without support. The claimant is fully
dependent on his parents even for his daily routine and cannot travel alone
as he even cannot locate his own house unless he is left in the street where
his house is situated.
31. Thus, it may not be feasible to compensate the claimant for the loss of
amenities he has suffered and the kind of life he may have to lead by
remaining dependent on his family.
32. In the given circumstances of the case, I enhance the compensation as
tabulated hereunder:-
Under the head Compensation Compensation Compensation
granted by enhanced by this to which the
Tribunal Court claimant now
entitled
Medical ₹1,20,101/- ₹1,00,000/- ₹2,20,101/-
Expenses
Special Diet, ₹50,000/- --- ₹50,000/-
Conveyance &
attendant charges
Loss of Income ₹75,000/- ₹1,25,000/- ₹2,00,000/-
Pain & Suffering ₹40,000/- ₹60,000/- ₹1,00,000/-
Loss of amenities ₹50,000/- ₹50,000/- ₹1,00,000/-
of life
Loss of earning ₹6,48,000/- --- ₹6,48,000/-
capacity
Physical ₹50,000/- ₹50,000/- ₹1,00,000/-
disfigurement due
to permanent
disability
Reduction of ₹50,000/- ₹1,00,000/- ₹1,50,000/-
matrimonial
aspects
Total ₹10,83,101/- ₹4,85,000/- ₹15,68,101/-
Less (-) interim ₹ 25,000/- --- ₹25,000/-
compensation
TOTAL ₹ 10,58,101/- 15,43,101/-
33. Accordingly, the claimant Tarandeep Singh Anand is awarded
enhanced compensation of ₹4,85,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5 % per
annum from the date of filing the claim petition.
34. The insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation with interest within six weeks. It is directed that the enhanced
compensation of ₹4,85,000/- shall be kept in the form of four FDRs for a
period of five years, six years, seven years and eight years respectively. The
claimant can withdraw the quarterly interest accrued thereon to enable him
to meet the cost of consultation and medicines.
35. MAC.APP.No.35/2012 filed by the insurance company is dismissed.
36. MAC.APP No.285/2015 stands allowed in above terms.
37. Statutory amount, if any, deposited by the insurance company at the
time filing of MAC.APP. No.35/2012, shall be refunded to the Insurance
Company.
38. LCR be sent back alongwith copy of this order.
39. A copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties,
as prayed.
(PRATIBHA RANI)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 18 , 2015
'pg'
