Delhi District Court
Arvind Kumar (I)(Fir335/18/K.Gate) vs Anish (Oic) on 5 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF DR. RUCHI AGGARWAL ASRANI
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010101912019
MACT No. : 559/2019
FIR No. : 335/2018
PS : Kashmere Gate
u/s : 279/338 IPC
Mr. Arvind Kumar
S/o Mr. Subedar Singh,
R/o L-19/10 Jaiprakash Nagar
Ghonda, Delhi. ......Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Anish (Driver of offending vehicle)
S/o Sh. Babuddin,
R/o. H. No. 324, Gate No. 7,
Welcome, Delhi.
2. Goverdhan Transport Company Pvt. Ltd. (owner of the offending
vehicle)
B-2, Tyagi Vihar, Nangloi, Delhi-41
through its Manager, Sh. Dharamvir Singh.
3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
B.P. Rohini, 215, Pitampura Market, Delhi-110034.
......Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 30.07.2019
Judgment reserved on : 30.11.2024
Date of Award : 05.12.2024
MACT No. 559/19 Arvind Kumar Vs. Anish & ors. Page 1 of 38
AWAR D
The Detailed Accident Report (DAR) filed on 30.7.2019 was registered as a Motor Accident Claim petition. The DAR revealed that a Road Traffic Accident took place on 07.11.2018 at about 1.30 PM at Yudhister Setu, Opposite ISBT, Kashmere Gate, Delhi wherein Mr. Arvind Kumar had sustained grievous injury. The accident took place with the vehicle i.e. Bus bearing registration No. DL-1PD-2440 driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1, Anish, owned by respondent no.2, Goverdhan Transport Company Pvt. Ltd. and insured with respondent no. 3, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Brief facts of the case:
2. Based on the facts outlined in the DAR, it emerges that on on 07.11.2018, on receipt of the information of the accident in question vide DD No. 19A at P.S. Kashmere Gate, ASI Rakesh Kumar went to the spot where he was informed that a bus had hit in an auto due to which many people got injured and all the injured persons have been taken to two hospitals by PCR vans. He immediately went to Trauma Centre where the injured Mr. Arvind Kumar was found under treatment vide MLC No.13014/18. The other injured persons namely Md.
Shamim, Sh. Ravi Bhushan, and Sh. Pati Ram were found under treatment vide MLC No. 13011/18; 13012/18; and 13013/18. However, none of them made any statement on that day. Thereafter, ASI Rakesh Kumar went to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital where injured Anish was found under treatment vide MLC No. 3182/18 but his statement also could not be recorded. Since none of the injured made any statement, the DD No. MACT No. 559/19 Arvind Kumar Vs. Anish & ors. Page 2 of 38 19A was kept pending. On 11.11.2018, complainant/ petitioner Mr. Shamim had appeared at P.S. Kashmere Gate and ASI Rakesh Kumar recorded his statement wherein he stated that he is an auto driver and on 07.11.2018 at about 1.30 P.M, he was waiting for passengers at Yudhisthir Setu on the road leading towards Shastri Park opposite ISBT, Kashmere Gate and suddenly, one orange cluster bus bearing registration No. DL-1PD-2440 being driven by its driver rashly and negligently at a very high speed hit his standing auto due to which the person standing next to his auto as well as he sustained injuries. He further stated that when he got out of his auto and looked at the bus, 3-4 persons in the bus had also sustained injuries as they were getting down from the bus. Someone had called at 100 number and PCR Van came at the spot. The person who was standing next to his auto was named as Arvind Kumar and driver of the bus was Anish S/o Babuddin. PCR van took all the injured persons to two different hospitals. He stated that the accident occurred due to sole rashness and negligence of the driver of the bus/offending vehicle and many people got injured and therefore, appropriate action be taken against the driver of the offending bus. On the basis of the spot of the accident and statement of injured Shamim, the offence under Section 279/337 IPC was found to have been committed and accordingly, FIR No. 335/2018 was registered at P.S. Kashmere Gate.
3. During the course of investigation, the IO prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant, Mr. Shamim and seized both the accidental vehicles i.e. bus bearing registration No. DL-1PD-2440 and auto bearing registration no. DL-1RV-2262. He served notice under MACT No. 559/19 Arvind Kumar Vs. Anish & ors. Page 3 of 38 Section 133 M.V. Act upon the Depot Manager and on 12.11.2018, and reply to the said notice was received as per which, Anish was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. The IO made enquiry from the driver and since sufficient material was available against him, he arrested him. He also seized the driving license and badge of the driver and deposited with malkhana. Since the offence was bailable, he was released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds. The IO also got the mechanical inspection of both the accidental vehicles done. Documents pertaining to the offending vehicle were got verified and they were found to be correct. Thereafter, IO submitted the MLCs of the injured persons for final opinion and later, he collected the same. As per final opinion on the MLC of the injured/petitioner in the present matter, the injury was 'grievous'. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against respondent no. 1, Anish under Section 279/338 IPC and DAR was filed before this Tribunal on 30.07.2019.
Written statements:
4. Respondent no.1 neither appeared nor filed his written statement on 14.10.2019 and therefore, he was proceeded exparte on that day. Written statements on behalf of respondent no.2 as well as respondent no.3 were filed on 14.10.2019.
ISSUES FRAMED
5. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated 14.10.2019, the following issues were framed:
MACT No. 559/19 Arvind Kumar Vs. Anish & ors. Page 4 of 38i. Whether the petitioner Arvind Kumar suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 07/11/2018 at about 13.30 hours involving Bus bearing registration No. DL-1PD-2440 driven by the Respondent No.1 rashly and negligently, owned by the Respondent No.2 and insured with the respondent no. 3? OPP.
ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to
what amount and from whom? OPP.
iii. Relief.
EVIDENCE
6. The petitioner examined himself as PW-1. Respondent no. 1 examined himself as R1W-1 and respondent no. 3 examined Ms. Bharti Meena, Deputy Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. As R3W1.
7. The petitioners had filed Form XIV. Financial statement of the petitioner was recorded and final arguments were heard on behalf of the petitioner and the respondents.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
8. Before delving into the facts of the current case to decide the aforementioned issues, it is pertinent to highlight that it is firmly established in legal precedents that the proceedings conducted before the Claims Tribunal are in the nature of an inquiry. Further, procedural approach adopted by an accident claims' tribunal mirrors that of a civil court (National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Pushpa Rana & Ors. 2009 MACT No. 559/19 Arvind Kumar Vs. Anish & ors. Page 5 of 38 ACJ 287). In civil proceedings, the establishment of facts hinges on a preponderance of probabilities, rather than being bound by the strict rules of evidence or the higher standard of beyond reasonable doubt, as required in criminal cases. The burden of proof in civil cases is lighter than in criminal cases, and the burden to decide claim petition under The Motor Vehicles Act is even lesser as compared to a civil litigation. In Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors (2009) 13 SC 530, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that negligence must be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view must be adopted in reaching a conclusion.
9. Keeping in mind the aforementioned legal principle for adjudicating the present issue, this Tribunal has thoroughly gone through the testimony of the witnesses and all the material available on record. Also, careful consideration has been given to the arguments addressed by the Learned Counsels for all the parties.
ISSUE NO. 1:
Whether the petitioner Arvind Kumar suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 07/11/2018 at about 13.30 hours involving Bus bearing registration No. DL-1PD-2440 driven by the Respondent No.1 rashly and negligently, owned by the Respondent No.2 and insured with the respondent no. 3? OPP.
The factum of accident:
10. In this matter, to prove the occurrence of the accident, the petitioner examined himself as PW-1 who deposed as under:
MACT No. 559/19 Arvind Kumar Vs. Anish & ors. Page 6 of 38"1. That the deponent is the petitioner in the above noted case and he is fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and competent to swear of this affidavit.
2. That the deponent is permanent resident of Delhi and residing at the above said address with his family members. The deponent has Aadhar No. 354429734109.
3. That on the unfortunate day i.e. 07.11.2018 the deponent was waiting at Yudhister Setu Opp. ISBT Kashmere Gate, Delhi at about 1:30 PM standing in front of Auto No. DL-1RV-2262 to board the vehicle for destination his home. In the meanwhile, driver of offending Bus No.DL-1PD-2440 Orange colour Culaster Bus Route No.211 brought the bus in a rash and negligent manner and hit the stationed Auto rickshaw no. DL-1RV-2262 from the back side and due to which the deponent as well as the driver of the Auto sustained the injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the above said offending vehicle.
4. That the deponent sustained the grievous injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver namely Anish S/o. Babuddin R/o. H.No. 324 Gate No. 7, Welcome, Delhi, who was driven the offending Bus registration no. DL-1PD-2440 and the FIR no. 335 dated 11.11.2018 and a charge sheet has been filed against him in under section 279/338 IPC, under the jurisdiction of police station Kashmere Gate, Delhi.
5. That thereafter the deponent on 07.11.2018 at about 02:30 PM was admitted in Shustra Trauma Centre Govt. of NCT of Delhi, vide its MLC no. 13014/18 dated 07.11.2018.
6. That the deponent says that thereafter he was admitted in MAX HEALTH CARE at Max Super Speciality Hospital Patparganj on same day i.e. 07.11.2018 at 4:44 PM and was discharged from the hospital on 10.11.2018 at 4 PM.
7. That the deponent is working as Assistant MACT No. 559/19 Arvind Kumar Vs. Anish & ors. Page 7 of 38 Manager (Administration in BPTP LIMITED ECE HOUSE 28 KG MARG, NEW DELHI. The I Card issued by the company is attached and the Pass book of bank which is showing the salary of the deponent is attached herewith. The deponent has the PAN card is also attached.
8. That the deponent was under the treatment for a period of one year and during that period he had incurred a huge amount in his treatment i.e. diet expenses, transport expenses, doctors fees, medicine fees and he suffered mental agony.
9. That due to the grievous injuries the deponent is suffering pain over the whole body till today.
10. That the deponent has the liabilities of his following legal heirs :
(i) Subedar Singh Father 18.02.1964
(ii) Urmila Devi Mother 18.07.1966
(iii) Mamta Devi Wife 01.01.1984
(iv) Armaan
Kumar Singh Son 27.12.2007
(v)Tamanna Singh Daughter 10.06.2011
11. That the deponent rely upon the following documents:
(i) copy of Aadhar of deponent is exhibited as Ex.PW1/1
(ii) Copy of Employment card no. 1300 of the deponent is exhibited as Ex. PW1/2.
(iii) Copy of bank account of the deponent is exhibited as Ex. PW1/3.
(iv) Copy of PAN Card the deponent is exhibited as Ex. PW1/4.
(v) Copy of Educational Certificate of the deponent issued by BIHAR INTERMEDIATE SHIKSHA PARISHAD PATNA is exhibited as Ex.PW1/5.
(vi) Copy of MLC No.13014 date 07.11.2018 of the deponent is exhibited as Ex. PW1/6.
(vii) Original Discharge Summary of the deponent issued by MAX HEALTH CARE is exhibited as PW1/7 (Colly).
(vii) Original Bill No. PGIC347837, IPID No.339499 of the deponent issued by MAX HEALTH CARE MACT No. 559/19 Arvind Kumar Vs. Anish & ors. Page 8 of 38 (total 10 pages) are exhibited as Ex. PW1/8 (Colly)
(ix) Original Interim Bill of Supply Inpatient Bill (Summary) dated 10.11.2018 of the deponent is exhibited as Ex. PW1/9.
(x) Original Duplicate bill dated 10.11.2018 of deponent is exhibited as Ex. PW1/10.
(xi) Original Laboratory Investigation Report dated 07.11.2018 of the deponent issued by MAX Health Care (total 14 pages) are exhibited as Ex. PW1/11.
(xii) Original X ray ankle dated 9.11.2018 of the deponent is exhibited as Ex. PW1/12.
(xiii) The original DAR filed by the IO is exhibited as Ex.PW1/13 (colly).
12. That the deponent is entitled for a compensation a sum of Rs.20 Lakhs (Rupees Twenty Lakh) from the Insurance company of the offending vehicle and as well as from the Owner of the offending vehicle and Driver of the offending vehicle.
13. That the deponent is facing hardship due to the above said accident which was occurred due to the negligence driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.
14.That the deponent says that the evidence by way of affidavit has been prepared by my counsel under my instructions and the same has been read over the understood by the deponent in his vernacular languages and the same are true and correct."
11. PW-1 categorically proved the factum of the accident and he specifically deposed that on 07.11.2018, he was waiting at Yudhister Setu Opp. ISBT Kashmere Gate, Delhi in front of an Auto bearing no. DL-1RV-2262 to board the vehicle for destination for his home when at about 01:30 PM, the driver of the orange coloured offending Bus No. DL-1PD-2440 on Route No.211 hit the stationed Auto rickshaw no. DL-1RV-2262 from the back side as it drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner. He further deposed that due to the said accident, he as well as the driver of the Auto sustained the injuries. He also deposed that MACT No. 559/19 Arvind Kumar Vs. Anish & ors. Page 9 of 38 he was admitted in Sushruta Trauma Centre and treated vide MLC no. 13014/18. PW-1 testified that thereafter, he was admitted in MAX HEALTH CARE at Max Super Speciality Hospital Patparganj on the same day i.e. 07.11.2018 at 4:44 PM and was discharged from the hospital on 10.11.2018.
12. PW-1 emphatically testified that the accident occurred due to the fault of the driver of the offending vehicle who was driving at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. PW-1 has specifically deposed qua the driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1PD-2440 by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner. Respondent no. 1 has not filed any reply. Respondent no.1 has not even examined himself to prove that he was not rash or negligent and as such adverse inference has to be drawn against him (reliance is placed on the judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the cases of Teja Singh Vs Suman & Ors., MAC. APP. 1111/2018 & CM APPL. 52384/2018, 52386/2018, date of decision 06/12/2019; MAC. APP. 428/2018, titled as The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamla Devi & Ors, date of decision 08.11.2019 and MAC. APP. 690/2017 & CM APPL. 28108/2017, titled as Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mona & Ors., date of decision 15.10.2019, which had relied upon the judgment in the case of Cholamandalam Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamlesh 2009(3) AD Delhi 310.) Secondly, the fact of the accident has not been disputed and thus, it stand established that the accident did take place due to which the petitioner sustained injuries.
13. Furthermore, in view of filing of DAR containing the MACT No. 559/19 Arvind Kumar Vs. Anish & ors. Page 10 of 38 chargesheet for the offences u/s 279/338 IPC and other relevant documents against respondent no.1 and in terms of the judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Vs. Pushpa Rana & Ors. 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, respondent no. 1 Anish (driver of the offending vehicle) is held to be negligent on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. From the DAR, it also stands established that the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1PD-2440 was owned by respondent no. 2, Goverdhan Transport Company Pvt. Ltd. and insured with respondent no. 3, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vide Policy No. 271901/31/2019/1647 valid from 30.08.2018 to Mid Night 29.08.2019. The factum of said insurance is also admitted by the respondent no.3 insurance company in its reply. However, it has been stated that the said vehicle was insured with certain terms and conditions and since respondent no. 1 i.e. the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the offending vehicle without a valid and effective driving license, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify respondent nos.1 & 2. This issue will be decided at a later stage.
The injury:
14. The injured Arvind Kumar was taken to Sushruta Trauma Hospital after the accident where he was treated vide MLC bearing no. 13014/18 dated 07.11.2018. The alleged history has been mentioned to be road traffic accident and as per final opinion on the MLC, the nature of the injury suffered by him has been stated to be 'grievous'. His further treatment took place in Max Health Care, Patparganj where he remained admitted from 07.11.2018 to 10.11.2018.
MACT No. 559/19 Arvind Kumar Vs. Anish & ors. Page 11 of 3815. Furthermore, the petitioner had filed an application to be examined for assessment of physical disability. He was examined by the Medical Board at Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital and vide certificate bearing No. 1898 dated 13.12.2022, it has been observed that the petitioner is a case of "FUC of # BB leg Rt." It was further opined that he is physically disabled and has 10% (Ten Percent) permanent physical impairment in relation to his Rt lower limb. It was also opined that this condition is non-progressive and not likely to improve. Therefore, it is held that the petitioner Arvind Kumar suffered grievous injury in the accident in question and has also suffered 10% permanent disability in relation to his right lower limb.
ISSUE NO. 2Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? (OPP.)
16. The petitioner is certainly entitled for compensation in view of the decision of issue No.1 above. The petitioner is claiming a total compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/- (as per form XIV) from the respondents. I have considered the evidence on record and perused the entire record. Before proceeding further to decide the present issue, it would be apposite to encapsulate the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its guiding lamp post judgment for ascertaining just compensation in road vehicular injury cases. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 34, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
MACT No. 559/19 Arvind Kumar Vs. Anish & ors. Page 12 of 38"General principles relating to compensation in injury cases
4. The provision of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The Court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467).
5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would 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) MACT No. 559/19 Arvind Kumar Vs. Anish & ors. Page 13 of 38
(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. 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. Decision of this Court and 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). We are concerned with that assessment in this case. Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability.
6. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human-being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder MACT No. 559/19 Arvind Kumar Vs. Anish & ors. Page 14 of 38 life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (`Disabilities Act' for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation.
7. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body, cannot obviously exceed 100%.
MACT No. 559/19 Arvind Kumar Vs. Anish & ors. Page 15 of 388. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. 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 terns 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 vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567).
9. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence: (i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary; (ii) if the MACT No. 559/19 Arvind Kumar Vs. Anish & ors. Page 16 of 38 disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement,
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered by the person. If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity.
10. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or
(iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. 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 MACT No. 559/19 Arvind Kumar Vs. Anish & ors. Page 17 of 38 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. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may."
17. In view of the above law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in injury cases, award needs to be passed only under heads of medical expenses, loss of earning during treatment period and damages for pain, suffering and trauma. However, in cases of serious injuries, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the claim of the claimant, award additionally needs to be passed under the heads of loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability suffered, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (including loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. The assessment of future medical expenses would depend upon specific medical MACT No. 559/19 Arvind Kumar Vs. Anish & ors. Page 18 of 38 evidence/advise for further treatment and costs thereof. The determination of damages on account of pain and suffering, loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life would depend upon the age of victim, nature of injury(ies)/deprivation/disability suffered by victim and the effect thereof on life of the petitioner. The process would involve determination/assessment of lump-sum amounts under those heads. In the case of assessment of loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, this Tribunal needs to first ascertain whether the disability noted/assessed by the medical board is temporary or permanent in nature. If the disability is permanent in nature, then whether it is a total permanent disability or partial permanent disability. If the disability has been referred/expressed in percentage terms, in reference to any specific limb then the effect of such disability of the limb on the function of entire body has to be ascertained. Once, the permanent disability is ascertained, then the Tribunal needs to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect the earning capacity of the claimant. To ascertain the same, the Tribunal needs to ascertain the avocation, profession and nature of work of the claimant before the incident. The Tribunal also needs to ascertain his age and then needs to ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of permanent disability and what he could not do as result of same. The Tribunal then also needs to ascertain whether the claimant is totality disabled from earning any kind of livelihood or whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on activities and functions which he was carrying on earlier or whether the claimant is prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of MACT No. 559/19 Arvind Kumar Vs. Anish & ors. Page 19 of 38 activities and functions to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood despite permanent disability suffered. After ascertaining the functional disability through the above process, the Tribunal needs to workout the loss of earning capacity per month. The Tribunal is thereafter required to workout loss of earning capacity per annum. An appropriate multiplier needs to be ascertained as per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 ACJ 1298 SC according to age of the injured/victim. The total loss of earning capacity then needs to be worked out multiplying appropriate multiplier ascertained with ascertained annual loss of earning capacity. This is a case where permanent disability is claimed and compensation is also demanded qua future loss of earnings on account of permanent disability, hence, this Tribunal now proceeds further step by step to decide the compensation/award under different heads applicable to the present matter in light of above preposition.
Determination of Injuries and Duration of the Treatment:
18. It would be appropriate to first ascertain the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner/injured and duration of treatment as they need to be kept in mind while ascertaining the compensation under different applicable heads. It has already been determined above that the petitioner suffered grievous injury in the accident in question and permanent disability of 10% in relation to his right lower limb. Further, the petitioner/ injured was hospitalised w.e.f. 07.11.2018 to 10.11.2018. Thus, his compensation is computed as follows:
MACT No. 559/19 Arvind Kumar Vs. Anish & ors. Page 20 of 38Medical expenses:
19. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 50,000/- towards medical expenses. In this regard, the petitioner has placed reliance on the following original medical bills:
Table No. 1S. HOSPITAL/PHARMACY BILL NO. BILL AMOUNT No. NAME DATE
1. Max Healthcare Max Super PGIC347837 10.11.18 1,23,165.66 Speciality Hospital TOTAL 1,23,165.66/-
20. The petitioner has filed one bill for Rs. 1,23,165.66/-, however, it appears from the bill that Rs. 1,05,135/- was reimbursed by the medi-claim policy. Therefore, the petitioner/injured Arvind Kumar is entitled to Rs. 18,030.66/- towards medical expenses.
Loss of income:
21. Coming to the aspect of loss of income, the petitioner Arvind Kumar claimed that he was an Assistant Manager and was earning Rs. 28,991/- per month, but due to the accident, he suffered loss of income to the tune of Rs.75,000/- as mentioned in his Form-XIV. However, the petitioner has not filed any document to show that he was earning Rs.28,991/- per month. He has also admitted that he has not filed any proof of income. Thus, the income of the petitioner will have to be assessed as per the minimum wages. The petitioner has filed on record his Aadhar card bearing no. 3544 2973 4109 as per which he was a resident of Delhi. Also, he has filed his Intermediate School MACT No. 559/19 Arvind Kumar Vs. Anish & ors. Page 21 of 38 Certificate. Therefore, in the absence of proof of income and considering his address to be of Delhi, the minimum wages for a matriculate prevalent in Delhi at the time of the accident (on 07.11.2018) i.e. Rs. 16,962/- is taken as the income of the petitioner/ injured Arvind Kumar. Therefore, it is held that the monthly income of the petitioner/ injured Arvind Kumar at the time of the accident i.e. on 07.11.2018 was Rs. 16,962/-. Further, the petitioner has claimed that he could not go to work for 02 months and keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to the Loss of Income for 02 months i.e. Rs. 16,962 x 2 = Rs.33,924/-.
Pain and Suffering:
22. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 1,50,000/- under the head pain and suffering, however, no justification has been given for claiming such a huge amount. It is true that a particular amount cannot be fixed under the head pain and suffering which could be applicable to all cases as it varies from case to case. However, considering the nature of injuries as well as the disability suffered by the injured/petitioner, this Tribunal hereby grants compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
Mental shock:
22. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 1,50,000/- under the head mental shock. Considering the nature of injuries and the disability suffered by the injured/petitioner, this Tribunal hereby grants MACT No. 559/19 Arvind Kumar Vs. Anish & ors. Page 22 of 38 compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards mental shock to the petitioner.
Loss of amenities:
23. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 1,50,000/- under the head loss of amenities. Considering the nature of injuries and the disability suffered by the injured/petitioner, this Tribunal hereby grants compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of amenities to the petitioner.
Special Diet:
24. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head special diet but there is no cogent evidence on record regarding money spent by the petitioner upon special diet. However, considering the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner, this Tribunal is of the opinion that petitioner must have spent some money under this head.
Hence, this Tribunal hereby grant compensation of Rs. 20,000/- towards expenses incurred on special diet.
Conveyance charges:
25. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head conveyance charges but there is no cogent evidence for the same.
However, considering the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner, this Tribunal is of the opinion that petitioner must have incurred some expense on conveyance. Hence, this Tribunal hereby grant compensation of Rs. 20,000/- towards conveyance charges.
MACT No. 559/19 Arvind Kumar Vs. Anish & ors. Page 23 of 38Attendant charges:
26. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 50,000/- under this head, however, there is no cogent evidence on record for the money spent by the petitioner upon an attendant. However, taking into account the injuries suffered by him, Rs. 20,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under the head of attendant charges.
Disfiguration:
27. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 5,00,000/- under this head, however, there is no evidence on record that the petitioner has suffered disfiguration. Therefore, no compensation is awarded under this head.
Loss of earning, inconvenience, hardship, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
28. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 3,25,000/- under this head. Considering the nature of injuries and the disability suffered by the petitioner/ injured, Rs. 50,000/- is awarded to the petitioner/ injured under this head.
Future loss of income:
29. The petitioner Arvind Kumar has claimed loss of future earning towards the 10% disability suffered by him. It has already been established that the petitioner has suffered 10% disability in relation to his right lower limb. Therefore, the functional disability of the petitioner MACT No. 559/19 Arvind Kumar Vs. Anish & ors. Page 24 of 38 is assessed at 5% in relation to the whole body for the purposes of calculating the compensation. The income of the petitioner has been assessed as Rs. 16,962/- as on the date of accident.
30. As per the Aadhar Card, the date of birth of the injured/ petitioner Arvind Kumar is 10.11.1978, thus, as on the date of accident i.e. 07.11.2018, the petitioner was aged 39 years 11 months and 27 days old. Thus, he was more than 39 years old and less than 40 years of age. Accordingly, the Multiplier of fifteen (15) is taken for purposes of calculating the loss of income of the petitioner (Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision - 31.10.2017). Further, by adopting the principles laid down in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), the future prospects of Arvind Kumar shall be 40% as he was self employed and was below the age of 40 years at the time of accident on 07.11.2018.
31. As already discussed in the preceding para, the income of the petitioner has been taken as Rs. 16,962/-In view of the above, the loss of Income on account of functional disability is calculated as under:
Monthly income Rs. 16,962/-
Annual Income Rs. 16,962/- x 12 =
Rs. 2,03,544/-
Add Future Prospects @ 40% Rs. 2,03,544/- x 40% =
Rs. 81,417.60/-
Total income Rs. 2,84,961.60/-
Disability @ 5% Rs. 2,84,961.60/- x 5%= Rs. 14,248.08/-
MACT No. 559/19 Arvind Kumar Vs. Anish & ors. Page 25 of 38
Loss of Income after multiplier (15) Rs. 14,248.08/- x 15 = Rs. 2,13,721.20/-
(rounded off to Rs. 2,13,721/-)
32. Thus, keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner as well as the disability suffered by him, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to Rs. 2,13,721/- under the head future loss of income.
33. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the material on record, and the settled principles and guidelines governing the injury cases like the present one, the compensation is being derived in the present case as under:-
NAME OF HEAD AMOUNT (in Rupees) Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 18,030.66/- Monthly income of injured Rs. 16,962/- Loss of income of 02 months Rs. 33,924/- Add future prospects Rs. 81,417.60/-
Loss of future income (income X % Rs. 2,13,721/-
Earning Capacity X Multiplier) Any other loss/expenditure Nil. Pain & Suffering Rs. 50,000/- Mental Shock Rs. 50,000/- Special diet Rs. 20,000/- Attendant charges Rs. 20,000/- Conveyance charges Rs. 20,000/- Loss of amenities Rs. 50,000/-
Loss of earning, inconvenience, Rs. 50,000/-
MACT No. 559/19 Arvind Kumar Vs. Anish & ors. Page 26 of 38 hardship, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc.
Total Rs. 5,25,693.66/-
(Rounded off to Rs. 5,25,694/-)
34. In the case of Benson George V. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 1540 of 2022 decided on 25.02.2022, Hon'ble Supreme Court had awarded an interest of 6% per annum. Therefore, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 30.07.2019 till realization.
DISBURSEMENT
35. The Financial Statement of petitioner/injured was recorded through his counsel by this Court/Tribunal. As per the said statement, the monthly expenses of his family are approximately Rs. 25,000/- per month.
36. Keeping in view the above, it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 5,25,694/- (Rupees Five Lacs Twenty Five Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Four only), Rs. 1,25,694/- (Rupees One Lac Twenty Five Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Four only), plus entire interest amount be released to the petitioner/claimant Arvind Kumar and the balance amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) shall be put in 16 monthly fixed deposits in his name in MACAD account of equal amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand MACT No. 559/19 Arvind Kumar Vs. Anish & ors. Page 27 of 38 only) each for a period of 01 month to 16 months respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in his saving account maintained in a nationalized bank situated near the place of his residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM card.
37. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to the petitioner only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account in a bank near her residence with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if it has been issued the said ATM Card has been withdrawn and shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal.
38. The above FDR(s) shall be prepared with the following conditions as enumerated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors.:
(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be an individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.MACT No. 559/19 Arvind Kumar Vs. Anish & ors. Page 28 of 38
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimants.
However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other branch of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque books and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and the claimant shall produced the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court for compliance.
39. In compliance of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award in the prescribed Format-XV is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
Date of Accident : 07.11.2018
Name of the injured : Arvind Kumar
Age of the injured : 40 years old.
Occupation of injured : Assistant Manager
Income of the injured : Rs.16,962/- per month
Nature of Injury : Grievous.
Medical Treatment taken : Sushruta Trauma Centre, Delhi
and Max Healthcare.
Period of Hospitalization: 07.11.2018 to 10.11.2018.
MACT No. 559/19 Arvind Kumar Vs. Anish & ors. Page 29 of 38
Whether any permanent : 10 %
disability?
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
Sr.No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
1. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 18,030.66
(ii) Expenditure on Special Diet Rs. 20,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on Rs. 20,000/-
Nursing/Attendant charges
(iv) Expenditure on Conveyance Rs. 20,000/-
(v) Monthly income of injured Rs. 16,962/-
(vi) Loss of income of 02 months Rs. 33,924/-
(vii) Add future prospects Rs. 81,417.60/-
viii) Any other loss which may Nil.
require any special
treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his
life
2. Non Pecuniary Loss
(i) Compensation for mental and
physical shock Rs. 50,000/- +Rs. 50,000/-=
Rs. 1,00,000/-
(ii) Pain and Sufferings
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 50,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration Nil.
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil.
(vi) Loss of earning, Rs. 50,000/-
inconvenience, hardships,
MACT No. 559/19 Arvind Kumar Vs. Anish & ors. Page 30 of 38
disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and
unhappiness in future life
etc.
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability 10%
assessed 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 5%
capacity in relation to
disability
(iv) Loss of future income - Rs. 2,13,721/-
(income x % earning
capacity x Multiplier)
4. Total Rs. 5,25,693.66/-
1(i+ii+iii+iv+vi)+2(i+ii+iii+vi) (Rounded off to Rs. 5,25,694/-)
+3(iv)
5. Total Compensation Rs. 5,25,694/-
6. Interest awarded 6%
7. Interest amount upto the date Rs.1,68,660.15/-
of award w.e.f.30.07.2019 (05
years 04 months and 05 days)
8. Total amount including Interest Rs. 6,94,354.15/-
(Rounded off to Rs. 6,94,354/-)
9. Award amount released As mentioned in para no. 36
MACT No. 559/19 Arvind Kumar Vs. Anish & ors. Page 31 of 38
10. Award amount kept in FDRs As mentioned in para no. 36
11. Mode of disbursement of the As mentioned in para no. 36
award amount of the
claimant(s)
12. Next date for compliance of 05.01.2025
the award
LIABILITY:
40. The offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1 Anish, owned by respondent no. 2, Goverdhan Transport Company Pvt.
Ltd. and insured with respondent no. 3, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
41. On the point of liability, Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3/ Insurance Company has submitted that respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle without a valid and effective driving license as on verification, the driving license of the driver was valid from 19.10.2015 to 18.10.2018 and the accident had occurred on 07.11.2018 i.e. after expiry of driving license of respondent no. 1 and thus, there was a violation of the terms of insurance policy and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the respondents. He has also submitted that Respondent nos. 1 & 2 were also served with the notice issued under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC to produce the valid driving license but the same was never produced before it or before this Tribunal. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3/Insurance Company examined Ms. Bharti Meena Deputy Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. as R3W1 who proved the dispatch of notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC to respondent nos. 1 & 2.
MACT No. 559/19 Arvind Kumar Vs. Anish & ors. Page 32 of 3842. On the other hand, respondent no. 1 has examined himself as R1W-1 who deposed that his driving license was seized on 29.10.2018 in the challan No. GNC 595 0/818 and therefore, he could not get the same renewed within a period of thirty days from the date of expiry of his driving license. He further deposed that the next date regarding the said challan was 19.11.2018 in the court of the concerned Ld. JMFC but prior to the same, the accident in question took place on 07.11.2018. Ld. Counsel for Respondent no. 1 also submitted that as per the Proviso to Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, every driving license is said to be effective for a period of thirty days from the date of expiry and that since the 30 days period had not expired, the license of Respondent no. 1 cannot be said to be invalid.
43. Careful reading of the Proviso to section 14 of the MV Act shows that it categorically lays down that "...every driving license shall, notwithstanding its expiry under this sub-section continue to be effective for a period of thirty days from such expiry."
44. In view of the said provision, it can be safely said that since the driving license of Respondent no. 1 had expired on 18.10.2018, it continued to be effective till 17.11.2018 and since the accident took place on 07.11.2018, it was effective as on the date of accident.
45. From the above arguments of Ld. Counsels for Respondent nos. 1 and 3, it is concluded that while respondent nos. 1 and 2 are liable to pay the award amount, respondent no. 3 is liable to indemnify respondent nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, respondent no. 3 is directed to pay MACT No. 559/19 Arvind Kumar Vs. Anish & ors. Page 33 of 38 the award amount.
Issue No.2 is decided accordingly.
RELIEF:
46. In view of the above, the respondent no. 3 - Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,25,694/-(Rupees Five Lacs Twenty Five Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Four only) along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 30.07.2019 till realization with the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the claimant, failing which the said respondent shall be liable to pay interest @ 7.5% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days.
47. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurance company for compliance within the time granted as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No.534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. The said respondent is further directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days of the deposit with a copy to the Claimant and his counsel.
Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost.
Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to MACT No. 559/19 Arvind Kumar Vs. Anish & ors. Page 34 of 38 Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on 05.01.2025 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by RUCHI RUCHI AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL ASRANI
Announced in the open Court today ASRANI Date:
2024.12.05
on this 5th day of December, 2024. 16:36:29 +0530 (Dr. RUCHI AGGARWAL ASRANI PO, MACT-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
MACT No. 559/19 Arvind Kumar Vs. Anish & ors. Page 35 of 38FORM - XVII COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD 1 Date of Accident 07.11.2018 2 Date of filing of Form-I -
First Accident Report Not available
(FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II
to the victim(s) Not available
4 Date of receipt of Form-III
from the Driver Not available
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV
from the Owner Not available
6 Date of filing of the Form-
V - Interim Accident Not available
Report (IAR)
7 Date of receipt of Form-
VIA and Form VIB from Not attached
the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII -
Detail Accident Report 30.07.2019
(DAR)
9 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
part of the Investigating No.
Officer? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the Not provided by the Insurance
Insurance Company Company
11 Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance Yes.
MACT No. 559/19 Arvind Kumar Vs. Anish & ors. Page 36 of 38
Company admitted his
report within 30 days of the
DAR?
12 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
part of the Designated
Officer of the Insurance No.
Company? If so, whether
any action/direction
warranted?
13 Date of response of the
claimant(s) to the offer of No legal offer was filed by the
the Insurance Company. insurance company.
14 Date of award 05.12.2024
15 Whether the claimant(s)
were directed to open
savings bank account(s) Yes.
near their place of
residence?
16 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 Aadhaar Card and 30.07.2019
the direction to the bank not
to issue any cheque
book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an
endorsement to this effect
on the passbook(s).
17 Date on which the Not produced.
claimant(s) produced the
passbook of their savings
bank account(s) near the
place of their residence
MACT No. 559/19 Arvind Kumar Vs. Anish & ors. Page 37 of 38
alongwith the endorsement,
PAN card and Aadhaar
Card?
18 Permanent residential
address of the claimant(s). As per Award
19 Whether the claimant(s)
savings bank account(s) is
Yes.
near their place of
residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s)
were examined at the time Yes. Financial statement of the
of passing of the Award to petitioner was recorded on
ascertain his/their financial 30.11.2024.
condition?
Digitally signed
RUCHI by RUCHI
AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL ASRANI
ASRANI Date: 2024.12.05
16:36:39 +0530
(Dr. Ruchi Aggarwal Asrani)
PO, MACT-01 (Central),
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
05.12.2024
MACT No. 559/19 Arvind Kumar Vs. Anish & ors. Page 38 of 38