Delhi District Court
Mal Singh vs . Himanshu Pratap & Ors. on 11 November, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARJYOT SINGH BHALLA
PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
MAL SINGH VS. HIMANSHU PRATAP & ORS.
DAR NO. 1099/17
ASI Mal Singh
S/o Sh. Hanuman Ram,
R/o Village Bishanpura,
PO Chittosa, PS Singhana,
District Jhunjhunnu, Rajasthan.
......Petitioner/Injured
Versus
1. Sh. Himanshu Pratap Singh
S/o Sh. Ram Naresh Singh,
R/o H.No. 305, D- Block, Rangpuri Phari,
Mahipalpur, New Delhi.
2. Sh. Arjun
S/o Sh. Vikram,
R/o K.H. 1229, G/F, B Block,
Near General Store, Rangpuri Extension,
Mahipalpur, New Delhi.
3. M/s TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Peninsula Business Park, Tower A, 15th Floor,
G.K. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013.
.....Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 13.12.2017
Date of framing of issues : 07.03.2018
Date of concluding arguments : 11.11.2021
Date of decision : 11.11.2021
DAR No. 1099/17 Page no.1 of 17
AWARD/JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The claim for compensation raised in the present Detailed Accident Report (DAR) relates to injuries suffered by petitioner in a road accident that took place on 16.08.2017, at about 09.40 am, T-3 road to Mahipalpur Road, Near Centaur Hotel Red Light, IGI Airport, Delhi, regarding which one FIR bearing no.307/17, under Sections 279/338 IPC was registered at PS IGI Airport. The offending vehicle involved in this case is a motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-12SH-6326, which at the relevant time of accident was being driven by R-1 (respondent no.1), owned by R-2 (respondent no. 2) and insured with R-3 (respondent no.3).
2. The case of petitioner, briefly stated, is that on the above said date, time and place of accident, the petitioner, working with Delhi Police as ASI, was doing emergency duty from 8 am to 8 pm along with other colleagues namely Ct. Narveer and Ct. Narender. They were checking the vehicles and managing the traffic near Centaur Hotel Red Light, IGI Airport, New Delhi. All of a sudden, a motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-12SH-6326 came and hit the petitioner. Due to this forceful impact, the petitioner lost his control and fell down on the road and sustained injuries on the right portion of his body as well as on his face. The said motorcycle was being driven by R-1 in a rash and negligent manner, without blowing any horn or in contravention of the traffic rules. Infact, the respondent no.1 with his companions was triple riding on high speed. The petitioner was initially taken to Army Hospital, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi where first aid treatment was given and thereafter, the petitioner was referred to AIIMS Trauma Centre for further treatment.
3. R-1 and R-2 had not filed their written statement to the DAR.
4. R-3/Insurance Company filed its written statement stating that as per the verification report filed by the IO, the driver of the offending DAR No. 1099/17 Page no.2 of 17 vehicle was not holding a driving license of any kind at the relevant time of accident and hence, the driver and owner have been challaned under Sections 3/181 and 5/180 of the MV Act. The Insurance company is liable to be exonerated and not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant as the accident had occurred due to the sole negligence of claimant as he was not following the traffic rules and regulations while standing on the road. In the said reply, the Insurance company had admitted the issuance and existence of a valid policy of insurance for the period 15.10.2016 to 14.10.2018 in the name of R-2/owner.
5. From pleadings of the parties, my Ld. Predecessor had framed the following issues on 07.03.2018 for disposal of the present DAR :-
1. Whether the injured Sh. Mal Singh sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on 16.08.2017, at about 09.40 am, Near Centaur Hotel Red Light, IGI Airport, New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DL-
12SH-6326 being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3.Relief.
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by Sh. Sanjeev Malik, Ld. Counsel for petitioner and Ms. Vandana Kahlon, Ld. Counsel for Insurance Company. However, none has turned up on behalf of R-1 and R-2 for addressing final arguments. The case record has also been perused. My findings on the above issues are as under :-
ISSUE No. 17. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by DAR No. 1099/17 Page no.3 of 17 preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case.
8. Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc.
9. Petitioner in support of his claim had examined on record total three witnesses, including himself. He had himself stepped into the witness box as PW1 and he had also examined HC Neeraj Kumar from Account Branch (Traffic), Todapur, New Delhi as PW2 and HC Anil Kumar, 3rd Battalion, Vikaspuri, Delhi as PW3. Since PW2 and PW3 had nothing to do with the above accident or its occurrence, it is the testimony of petitioner/PW1 only which matters for determination of present issue.
10. Petitioner is found to have tendered on record his examinations-in-chief by way of his affidavit Ex. PW1/A and it has been observed that in the said affidavit, he has made specific depositions regarding the factum as well as manner of the said accident which has already been discussed herein-above. He has further deposed in his affidavit regarding the nature of injuries suffered by him and treatment taken therefor. The petitioner was cross examined on behalf of Insurance Company. During his cross examination, he denied the suggestion that the accident took place due to his own negligence. He further denied the DAR No. 1099/17 Page no.4 of 17 suggestion that the respondent no. 1 was not rash and negligent and not responsible for the accident. No effective cross examination has been conducted on this aspect. He was a traffic police officer on duty and the respondent no. 1 was duty bound to drive carefully while approaching a traffic police officer performing duty on the road. The petitioner is duly corroborated on these aspects and there is no reason or ground as to why this tribunal should not believe and act upon his testimony as the same are found trustworthy and convincing.
11. Moreover, the oral testimony of petitioner is also found substantiated from records of the criminal case, which have been filed with the DAR. These documents not only consist of copies of the FIR and charge-sheet of the said case, but also copies of the site plan, MLC of petitioner etc. R-1 has already been charge-sheeted in the above criminal case for offences punishable under Sections 279/338 IPC for causing injuries on the persons of injured Mal Singh by his rash and negligent driving of the said motorcycle and the same in itself is a strong circumstance to corroborate the testimony of petitioner on above aspects.
12. Apart from above, R-1 was the best witness who could have countered or challenged the case of petitioner. However, he has not stepped into the witness box to substantiate his defence that the accident did not take place in the manner as stated by the petitioner or it was caused due to sole negligence of petitioner himself. Hence, an adverse inference can also be drawn against the respondents on this aspect, in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
13. Therefore, in view of the above, it is held that oral evidence led on record by the petitioner on this issue is duly substantiated by the documentary evidence and it stands proved by the principle of preponderance of probabilities that the above accident resulting into DAR No. 1099/17 Page no.5 of 17 injuries on the person of petitioner took place due to rash and negligent driving of the above offending motorcycle bearing no. DL-12SH-6326, which was being driven by R-1, owned by R-2 and insured with R-3 at the relevant time of accident. Hence, this issue is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
14. ISSUE NO.2 As the issue no.1 has been proved in affirmative and in favour of petitioner, the petitioner has become entitled to be compensated for the injuries and disability suffered in above accident, but the computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided.
In terms of provisions contained in Section 168 of the MV Act the compensation which is to be awarded by this tribunal is required to be 'just'. In the injury cases a claimant is entitled to two different kinds of compensations i.e. pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary damages. The pecuniary damages or special damages are those damages which are awarded and designed to make good the losses which are capable of being calculated in terms of money and the object of awarding these damages is to indemnify the claimant for the expenses which he had already incurred or is likely to incur in respect of the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The non-pecuniary or general damages are those damages which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. The pecuniary or special damages generally include the expenses incurred by the claimant towards his treatment, special diet, conveyance, cost of nursing/ attendant, loss of income/earning capacity etc. and the non-pecuniary damages generally include the compensation for the mental or physical shock, pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, marriage prospects and disfiguration etc. The above categories falling under both the heads of compensation are not exhaustive in nature but DAR No. 1099/17 Page no.6 of 17 only illustrative. It is also necessary to state here that no amount of money or compensation can put the injured/claimant exactly in the same position or place where he was before the accident and an effort is to be made only to reasonably compensate him or to put him almost in the same place or position where he could have been if the alleged accident had not taken place and this compensation is to be assessed in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The object of compensating him is also not to reward him or to make him rich in an unjust manner. It is also well settled that the 'just' compensation to be awarded to the claimant has to be calculated objectively and it may involve some guess work in calculating the different amounts which the claimant may be entitled under the different heads of compensation. Reference in this regard can be made on some of important judgments on the subject like the judgment in the case of R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1995, SC 755, Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2010) 10 SCC 254 and Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011)1 SCC 343.
15. In light of the above legal propositions, the amount of compensation which can be considered to be 'just' in the opinion of this tribunal shall be as under:-
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses
16. In his affidavit Ex. PW1/A, the petitioner has tendered on record, inter-alia, original medical bill of Rs. 647/- filed along with DAR as Ex. PW1/4. Since the above medical bill and expenses of petitioner are found to be in consonance with the treatment taken and injuries suffered by him, he is being awarded the above amount of Rs.647/- against his medical expenses.
(ii) Loss of actual earnings DAR No. 1099/17 Page no.7 of 17
17. As per discharge summary of JPNA Trauma Centre as Ex. PW1/2, the petitioner was diagnosed with Right LE Fort II, Left LE Fort, Mid Palatal split and bilateral NOE Fracture with soft tissue injury. His discharge summary further reflects that he had undergone suturing of palatal laceration with bridle wiring of 11-21 on 16.08.2017. Further, anterior nasal packing was done for about 48 hours. He was put on strict liquid diet, protein power twice daily and milk for one month and rest for seven days as per discharge summary. The petitioner was admitted in the said hospital on 18.08.2017 and discharged on 20.08.2017 with advice for bed rest and for further regular follow up. Thereafter, the wiring was removed on 08.11.2017 and arch bar was removed thereafter.
18. In his affidavit, the petitioner has claimed that he was working as Assistant Sub Inspector in Delhi Police and was drawing a salary of Rs. 52,909/- per month. He has further claimed that due to the above said injuries, he could not join his duties approx. for 36 days. The petitioner has tendered on record copy of his employment ID as Ex. PW1/5 (OSR), certificate showing medical rest issued by Dr. Mahender as Ex. PW1/6 and salary certificate for the month of March 2017 as Mark A.
19. In order to prove his employment and salary, the petitioner has examined on record HC Neeraj Kumar from Account Branch (Traffic), Todapur, New Delhi as PW2 who has brought the attested copies of salary slips of petitioner for the month of July and August 2017 as Ex. PW2/2 (colly). The petitioner has also examined on record HC Anil Kumar from 3rd Battalion, DAP, Vikaspuri, Delhi who has brought the attested copy of DD entries along with forwarding letters issued from Traffic Unit regarding leaves availed by the petitioner as Ex. PW3/A (colly), the entries regarding fitness of petitioner as Ex. PW3/B, duty roaster w.e.f. 17.08.2017 to 17.09.2017 as Ex. PW3/C (colly).
DAR No. 1099/17 Page no.8 of 17
20. It is noteworthy that there is apparent contradiction in Ex. PW1/6 and Ex. PW3/A. While Ex. PW1/6 mentions that ASI Mal Singh had availed medical rest uptil 17.09.2017 whereas Ex. PW3/A records that he has not availed any kind of leave during the period w.e.f. 17.08.2017 to 17.09.2017. Ex. PW3/A seems to be dated 19.02.2019. However, the said document records that the medical case was under
consideration. However, the document Ex. PW3/B produced by PW3 is the DD entry regarding return of ASI Mal Singh to duty. The said DD entry No. 14 dated 18.09.2017, IGI circle records that ASI Mal had returned after medical rest of 29 days. Therefore, in the absence of any cross examination on this aspect, the document Ex. PW3/B has to be believed and it is concluded that the petitioner availed leaves of 29 days for medical rest besides the period of his hospitalization. Therefore, from the date of accident till the date of joining, i.e. 18.09.2017, the entire period be treated as leave period. Hence, under this head, the petitioner is held entitled to be compensated for loss of his earnings equivalent to a period of 33 days i.e. from 16.08.2017 to 17.09.2017.
21. In terms of the judgment dated 04.09.2012 given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Sandeep Mishra Vs. Ajay Kumar Yadav & Ors., MAC App. No.215/2010, the petitioner is entitled to be compensated for all those leaves availed by him due to above accident irrespective of the nature of these leaves as it is now well settled that even if the leaves were paid leaves, the petitioner is entitled to be reimbursed for the same as he could have enjoyed or availed his leaves later on for his enjoyment or for enjoyment of his family members.
22. As per attested copies of salary slips of petitioner for the month of July and August 2017 as Ex. PW2/2 (colly), the gross income of deceased was Rs. 52,909/- per month and this tribunal has no hesitation in taking it as salary of the deceased at the time of accident and thus, the DAR No. 1099/17 Page no.9 of 17 annual earnings of the deceased come to Rs.6,34,908/- (Rs.52909/- X
12) and in view of the settled law on subject, only the tax liability, if any, of the deceased is to be reduced from his above annual earnings as his 'income' means the actual income less than the tax paid, as was also approved in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). As per the income tax rates prevailing at the time of accident, an amount of Rs. 12,097/- is required to be deducted towards tax liability. Hence, after deduction of tax, the annual income of deceased comes out to be Rs. 5,45,246/-
(Rs.6,34,908/- - Rs. 12,097/-) and the monthly income of deceased comes out to be Rs. 51,901/- (rounded off) (Rs. 6,22,811/12).
23. Therefore, the petitioner is being awarded an amount of Rs.57,091/- (rounded off) (Rs.51,901 ÷ 30 X 33 days) under this head pertaining to loss of his actual earnings.
(iii) Mental and Physical Shock, Pain and Sufferings & Loss of Amenities.
24. The nature, extent and duration of treatment of petitioner have already been discussed above. Though, it is not possible to exactly compensate him for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which he had actually suffered because of the above injuries, but as stated above, an effort has to be made to compensate him for the same in a just and reasonable manner. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the injuries suffered by petitioner and duration of the treatment taken by him etc., an amount of Rs.35,000/- each is being awarded to him towards mental and physical shock & pain and sufferings and besides this, an amount of Rs.15,000/- is also awarded to him towards the loss of amenities suffered during the said period of his treatment and immobility. Thus, he is awarded a total amount of Rs.85,000/- under this head.
DAR No. 1099/17 Page no.10 of 17 (iv) Conveyance, Special Diet and Attendant Charges
25. In his above affidavit Ex. PW1/A, the petitioner had claimed that he had spent Rs. 40,000/- on special diet and Rs. 30,000/- on conveyance. However, I have noticed that besides the discharge summary recommending special diet for one month in the form of protein intake twice a day and liquid diet, there is no other document showing special diet. Further this tribunal can very well take note of the requirement of conveyance for petitioner for frequently visiting the hospitals and doctors in connection with his treatment and hospitalization and also that of the special diet for his early recovery from the injuries suffered because of the above accident. Hence, an amount of Rs.10,000/- is being awarded to the petitioner towards the requirements of conveyance and Rs. 5,000/- towards the requirement of special diet.
26. Besides this, an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards attendant charges or the gratuitous services which might have been rendered by his family members during the above said period of his treatment, hospitalization and immobility is also awarded to him.
27. Hence, a total amount of Rs.18,000/- is being awarded to him under this head.
Issue No.3/Relief
28. The petitioner is thus awarded a sum of Rs.1,60,738/- (Rs.647/- + 57,091/- + 85,000/- + 18,000/-) (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Eight only) along with interest. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of this inquiry, shall be liable to be excluded from the above amount and calculations of compensation.
DAR No. 1099/17 Page no.11 of 17
RELEASE
29. The entire amount is directed to be released in the saving bank account of petitioner opened/to opened near the place of his residence as directed vide order dated 07.03.2018, through RTGS/NEFT or any other electronic mode.
LIABILITY
30. It is the case of respondent no. 3 that as per verification report filed by the IO, the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding driving license of any kind at the relevant time of accident and accordingly, the driver and owner have been challaned under Sections 3/181 & 5/180 MV Act and therefore, there was breach of the applicable policy terms and conditions and it was not liable to pay any amount. The respondents no. 1 and 2 never stepped into the witness box to establish a claim that the driver was holding a valid driving license at the relevant time of accident. On the contrary, the respondent no. 3 produced one Sh. Jenika Chopra, Claims Service Manager, Legal Claims who exhibited the insurance policy as Ex.R3W1/C, notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC as Ex. R3W1/D (colly) and the chargesheet in which R-1 and R-2 were challaned for offences under Sections 3/181 and 5/180 MV Act already exhibited.
31. Therefore, it is held that the respondent no. 1 was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident. Hence, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Giriraj Vs. Viniti Kohli & Anr., MACA No. 639/19, decided on 23.09.2019, R-3/Insurance Company is only held entitled to a right of recovery of the awarded amount from R-2, i.e. owner of the offending vehicle, as per the contract of insurance DAR No. 1099/17 Page no.12 of 17 executed between them. Therefore, R-3 is first liable to deposit the awarded amount with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR either by way of crossed cheques/DDs in name of the petitioners or by way of deposit in any e-form in bank account being maintained in the above said bank in name of this tribunal within 30 days from today. In case even after passage of 90 days from today, R-3 fails to deposit this compensation with interest, in that event R-3 shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay beyond 90 days from today and in light of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of R-3 with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.
32. R-3 shall inform the petitioner and his counsel through registered posts that the cheque/DD of the awarded amount is being deposited so as to facilitate him to collect his cheque/DD.
33. The copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Judgment titled as Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. passed in FAO no.842/2003 dated 12.12.2014.
34. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 08.01.2021.
35. The particulars of Form-V of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, in terms of directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 15.12.2017, are as under:-
1. Date of the accident 16.08.2017
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the Not given Investigation Officer to the Claims Tribunal.
DAR No. 1099/17 Page no.13 of 17
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the
Investigating Officer to the Insurance Not given
company.
4. Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Not given Cr.PC before the Metropolitan Magistrate.
5. Date of filing of Details Accident Report (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before 13.12.2017 Claims Tribunal.
6. Date of service of DAR on the Insurance 13.12.2017 Company.
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant(s). 13.12.2017
8. Whether DAR was complete in all Yes respects?
9. If not, state deficiencies in the DAR No
10. Whether the police has verified the Yes documents file with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If No so, whether any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Not given Officer by the Insurance Company.
13. Name, address and contact number of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Not given Company.
14. Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company submitted his report No within 30 days of the DAR?
15. Whether the Insurance Company admitted the liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company fairly No computed the compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiencies on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, No whether any action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant(s) of the Legal offer not filed.
offer of the Insurance Company.
18. Date of the award 11.11.2021
19. Whether the award was passed with the No consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to Yes DAR No. 1099/17 Page no.14 of 17 open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the 07.03.2018 direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant (s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
22. Date on which the claimant(s) produced the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along Yet to be furnished with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the R/o Village Bishanpura, Post Claimant(s) Office Chittosa, PS Singhana District, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
24. Details of savings bank account (s) of the claimant(s) and the address of the bank Yet to be furnished with IFSC Code.
25. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank Yet to be furnished account(s) is near his place of residence?
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the time of passing of the award to Yes ascertain his/their financial condition?
36. File be consigned to Records after necessary formalities. A separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 11.02.2022.
Announced in the open court. (Harjyot Singh Bhalla) on 11.11.2021 PO/MACT, New Delhi
Encl: The summary of computation in the prescribed format DAR No. 1099/17 Page no.15 of 17 SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD IN INJURY CASES IN FORM XVI Date of accident : 16.08.2017 Name of the injured : ASI Mal Singh Age of the injured : Around 54 years Occupation of the injured : ASI with Delhi Police Income of the injured : Rs.51,901/- per month Nature of injury : Grievous Medical treatment taken by the injured : JPNA Trauma Centre Period of hospitalization : 18.08.2017 to 20.08.2017 Whether any permanent disability? : No
10. Computation of Compensation Sr.No. Heads Amount awarded
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs.647/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 10,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 5,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 3,000/-
(v) Loss of earning capacity Nil
(vi) Loss of Income Rs.57,091/-
(vii) Any other loss which may require Nil
any special treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and Rs.35,000/-
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.35,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.15,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration Nil-
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Nil
hardships,disappointment,frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity DAR No. 1099/17 Page no.16 of 17
(i) Percentage of disability assessed Nil and nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Nil expectation of life span on account of disability.
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning Nil
relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income Nil
14. Total Compensation Rs.1,60,738/-
15. Interest Awarded 6% pa from date of filing of
DAR till deposit in 30 days and
9% after 90 days.
16. Interest amount up to the date of Rs.37,758.02
award
17. Total amount including interest Rs.1,98,496/- (rounded off)
18. Award amount released Entire amount released
19. Award amount kept in the FDRs/ Nil
Motor Accident Claims Annuity
Deposit (MACAD)
20. Mode of disbursement of the award Through bank
amount to the claimant (s)
21. Next date for compliance of the 11.02.2022
award
(Harjyot Singh Bhalla)
PO/MACT, New Delhi
11.11.2021
DAR No. 1099/17 Page no.17 of 17