Delhi District Court
Vishnu Mandal vs Balram on 28 May, 2025
:1:
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARU GUPTA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-01 (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No:602/21
Vishnu Mandal v. Balram
CNR No.: DLSE01-008546-2021
1. Sh. Vishnu Mandal
S/o Sh. Vinod Mandal
R/o 17/139, Ghitohrni Gadaipur
South West Delhi-110030.
.....Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Balram
S/o Sh. Suraj Pal
R/o Sheshpur Khaga, Khakhreru
Khaga, Fatehpur-212658
............Driver/Respondent no.1
2. NSN QUMAX R/o Khewat No. 263 Kila no. 18/1/21 Alipur Sohna Road, Gurgaon Haryana.
............Owner/Respondent no.2
3. United India Insurance company Ltd.
R/o Building, 502-503 floor, MACT NO.602/21 Vishnu Mandal v. Balram & Ors. P.No. 1 Of 22 BK :2: 60 Skylark no.5, Nehru Place Road, New Delhi.
............Insurance company/Respondent no.3 Date of accident : 14.08.2021 Result of accident : Injury(Permanent disability) Date of filing of Petition : 05.10.2021 Date of Decision : 28.05.2025 AWARD
1. The present claim petition arises out of road accident in which one Sh. Vishnu Mandal suffered grievous injury. An application u/s 166(1) MV Act was accordingly filed by the claimant/applicant.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.08.2021 at about 9.50 pm, when petitioner/injured was going to his home from sector-44, Gurugram alongwith his brother on his motorcycle bearing registration no.DL3SER-0619. When injured reached at sector-43, near Z chowk, Respondent no.1 came driving the truck bearing no. HR-55AD-1847 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle) in a rash and negligent manner and hit his motorcycle from behind. Due to this impact, petitioner sustained grievous injuries.
3. An FIR no.205/21 was registered u/s 279,337 of IPC PS Sushant Lok, Gurugram. Matter was investigated and a chargesheet was filed before concerned criminal court while claim petition was filed before this Tribunal.
4. Respondent no.1 is driver and Respondent no.2 is owner of the offending vehicle. Respondent no.3 is the insurer of the MACT NO.602/21 Vishnu Mandal v. Balram & Ors. P.No. 2 Of 22 BK :3: offending vehicle.
5. No Written statement or reply filed on behalf of Respondent no.1 and 2 despite opportunity.
Respondent no.3/insurance company filed reply submitting that petition is bad for non-joinder of parties of motorcycle and that petitioner contributed to the accident as he was driving without a valid driving licence. However, it was admitted that offending vehicle was insured on the date of accident.
6. Vide order dated 05.08.2022, following issues were framed.
1. Whether the deceased suffered injury (inadvertently mentioned as fatal injury) in a road traffic accident on 14.08.2021 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no.
HR-55AD-1847 being driven by R1, owned by R2 and insured with R3? OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
7. To prove his claim, petitioner Vishnu Mandal led his evidence by examining himself as PW-1 by way of affidavit as Ex.PW1/A. He deposed on the lines of the claim petition. He further deposed that he was unmarried and aged 20 years at the time of accident. He was working at Policy Bazar Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. and earning Rs.43,403/- p.m. He spent Rs.9,43,331/- on medical treatment, Rs.1,00,000/- on conveyance, Rs.1,50,000/- on special diet and Rs.38,21,000/- on attendant. He deposed that he would require an attendant for the rest of his life as he sustained 87% permanent disability.
He deposed that he would require an artificial limb, cost of MACT NO.602/21 Vishnu Mandal v. Balram & Ors. P.No. 3 Of 22 BK :4: which would be around Rs.6-7 lacs and it would work for a span of 3-4 years. Further, he would require an electrical wheel chair for rest of his life.
He relied upon his Aadhar card as Ex.PW-1/1, graduation certificate of Delhi University & 12th class as Ex.PW-1/2, Salary slip of petitioner Ex.PW-1/3, certified chargesheet as Ex.PW-1/4, Dishcarge summar as Ex.PW-1/5, Medical bill of injured as Ex.PW-1/6, disability certificate as Ex.PW-1/7 and artificial limb cosmetic cost as Ex.PW-1/8. He was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for insurance company/Respondent no.2.
Sh. Aman Bansal, AR of Policy Bazar Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. was examined as PW-2. He relied upon documents i.e. salary slip of injured as Ex.PW-2/1, Authority letter as Ex.PW-2/2 and affidavit u/s 65-B as Ex.PW-2/3. He was cross- examined by counsel for insurance company.
No evidence has been led on behalf of the respondents.
8. Final arguments in details were addressed on behalf of the claimant/injured and the insurance company. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, evidence adduced and arguments addressed, issue wise findings are as under:
Issue No. 1Whether the deceased suffered injury (inadvertently mentioned as fatal injury) in a road traffic accident on 14.08.2021 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no.
HR-55AD-1847 being driven by R1, owned by R2 and insured with R3? OPP
9. Before proceeding to decide the above issue, it is apposite to note that as a settled principle of law, proceedings under The MACT NO.602/21 Vishnu Mandal v. Balram & Ors. P.No. 4 Of 22 BK :5: Motor Vehicle Act are not considered akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not applicable. Reliance is placed upon decision in Bimla Devi & ors. vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors. (2009) 13 SC 535, in Parmeshwari vs. Amir Chand & Ors., 2011 (1) SCR 1096 and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ 287, wherein it has been held that the negligence has to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view has to be taken.
10. In the instant case, petitioner/injured Vishnu Mandal has examined himself to prove the factum as well as manner of accident. He has categorically stated that the accident occurred with the offending truck. He has specifically alleged that the offending truck which was being driven at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner hit his motorcycle from behind. Insurance company has not put any suggestion doubting the occurrence of the accident due to negligence of the offending vehicle however has sought to suggest negligence on the part of the petitioner by questioning him as to his driving licence. Petitioner has admitted that he was holding a learner's driving licence at the time of accident but at the same time has also testified that his brother was a pillion rider on the said motorcycle. The presence of elder brother of the petitioner on the motorcycle has not been disputed in the cross-examination nor any suggestion has been put by the insurance company questioning that such elder brother did not have any driving licence. As such, contributory negligence on the part of petitioner has not been proved by the insurance company.
MACT NO.602/21 Vishnu Mandal v. Balram & Ors. P.No. 5 Of 22 BK :6:
11. Further, after investigating even the police has filed a chargesheet against Respondent no.1 which shows that the accident was reported without any inordinate delay. The site plan, mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle and medical documents are suggestive of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. In National Insurance Co. vs. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, it was laid down that completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet are sufficient proof of negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
12. Further, driver of the offending vehicle has not challenged or denied by evidence, his rashness or negligence in driving of the offending vehicle or committing the accident. He has not even filed any reply or written statement in denial or rebuttal of the allegations of being rash and negligent in driving his motorcycle. It may further be noted that in Cholamandlam insurance company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh 2009 (3) AD Delhi 310, it was held that if driver of offending vehicle does not enter the witness box, an adverse inference can be drawn against him.
13. In totality of circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioners have been able to prove on the scales of preponderance of probabilities that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver/respondent no.1 on the date and time of accident. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
Issue no. 2 Whether the petitioners are entitled to any MACT NO.602/21 Vishnu Mandal v. Balram & Ors. P.No. 6 Of 22 BK :7: compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP.
14. As regards liability, insurance company has not raised any statutory defence or alleged breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. As such, Respondent no.3 is liable to indemnify the respondents and compensate the petitioners.
15. As regards the quantum of compensation, this court is governed by the law laid down by Hon'le Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 Supreme Court cases 343, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. (2003) 6SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.(2017) 16 SCC 680. The gist of the law is that 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 the 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.
16. Further it can be noted that the heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
MACT NO.602/21 Vishnu Mandal v. Balram & Ors. P.No. 7 Of 22 BK :8: Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
16.1. In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). 16.2. 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.
16.3. Assessment of pecuniary damages under Item (i) and under Item (ii) (a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve MACT NO.602/21 Vishnu Mandal v. Balram & Ors. P.No. 8 Of 22 BK :9: reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence.
16.4. Award under the head of future medical expenses--Item
(iii)--depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof.
16.5. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages--Items (iv), (v) and (vi)--involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. 16.6. Observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr. is quoted hereunder:
"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 MACT NO.602/21 Vishnu Mandal v. Balram & Ors. P.No. 9 Of 22 BK : 10 : 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. 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.
Pecuniary /Special Damages (i) Loss of earnings. Actual loss of earning:
17. As per the Discharge summary Ex.PW-1/5(colly) of Park Hospital, Medanta Gurgaon, Park Hospital, Nestiva, ISIC, AIIMS Delhi reveal that the petitioner suffered left thigh with underlying femur fracture, open wound over popliteal fossa with fracture femur right, chest compression NAD, knee instability as well as injuries in his limbs. He was admitted in Park hospital on 14.08.2021 and discharged on 22.08.2021, admitted in Medanta MACT NO.602/21 Vishnu Mandal v. Balram & Ors. P.No. 10 Of 22 BK : 11 : Gurgaon on 22.08.2021 and discharged on 22.08.2021, again admitted in Park hospital on 23.08.2021 and discharged on 27.08.2021, again admitted in Nestiva on 29.08.2021 and discharged on 30.08.2021, again admitted in ISIC on 30.08.2021 and discharged on 12.09.2021, again admitted on ISIC on 19.09.2021 and discharged on 20.09.2021, again admitted in AIIMS Delhi on 27.05.2022 and discharged on 31.05.2022. As per record, petitioner remained admitted for a period of about 9- 1/2 months. He also underwent surgery on 26.05.2022.
Hence, it is assumed that petitioner may have been completely incapacitated from doing any work for at least one year.
As regards loss of income, petitioner has examined PW-2 Aman Bansal, AR of Policy Bazar Insurance Broker Pvt. Ltd. who filed salary slip of petitioner as Ex.PW-2/1. He was cross- examined by learned counsel for insurance company wherein he stated that last drawn salary of the petitioner Rs.43,403/- p.m. but was ignorant about the nature of work of the petitioner. The income as well as the employment of the petitioner has not been disputed by the insurance company. As per Ex.PW-2/1, income of the petitioner is taken as Rs.43,403/- p.m. His loss of income is taken as Rs.43,403X12(months)=Rs.5,20,836/-.
Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to compensation towards loss of income as Rs.5,20,836/-.
Loss of future income/earnings:
18. In the present case, petitioner has relied upon disability certificate issued from Pt. Madan Mohan Malviya hospital, noticing permanent disability of 87% in relation to both lower MACT NO.602/21 Vishnu Mandal v. Balram & Ors. P.No. 11 Of 22 BK : 12 : limbs and and amputation of left leg above the knee. As per the undisputed salary slip which is also proved by PW-2 as Ex.PW-2/1, the petitioner is shown to be working as Associate Sales Consultant. There is no evidence to show that such consultancy involved an active field work. Apparently the work profile of the victim/petitioner would have been more of a desk job, clerical in nature. Considering the nature of employment that the petitioner was engaged in and the fact that due to amputation, he may not be able to secure a job of equal nature despite his qualifications, his functional disability is taken as 87% i.e. same as opined by the Medical Board.
Since the date of birth of the petitioner as per his Aadhar card, is 12.03.2001, his age at the time of accident on 14.08.2021 would have been 20 years, for purpose of calculating loss of future income, a multiplier of 18 (petitioner aged about 20 years), as per Sarla Verma judgment, would be applicable in the case and 40% would be added as future prospect as Pranay Sethi judgment. Hence, compensation towards loss of future income is assessed to Rs.43,403/-/-(monthly income)X12(annual computation) X18(multiplier)+40% of total income(as future prospect)=Rs.1,31,25,067/-. 87% of this amount would be Rs.1,14,18,808/-. Hence so awarded.
(ii) Future Medical Expenses:
19. Since the accident has resulted in amputation of left lower limb of the petitioner, a sum of Rs.3,00,00/- is awarded towards future medical expenses.
Cost of Artificial Limb Petitioner has placed on record estimate Ex.PW-1/8 of MACT NO.602/21 Vishnu Mandal v. Balram & Ors. P.No. 12 Of 22 BK : 13 : Rs.6,18,030/-towards installation of artificial limb. In view of decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Chander Jeet Singh v. Mahavir Singh MAC. APP 110/2006, a sum of Rs.6,18,030/-(in respect of left lower limb) is awarded to the petitioner and same is directed to be kept in two equal fixed deposits initially for a period of 2 years. As and when the petitioner gets the electronic artificial limb installed from Ottobock Health care India Pvt. Ltd., he shall write a letter to insurance company confirming that he has got the artificial limb installed and shall forward the original invoice to insurance company. The petitioner shall thereafter meet the AGM of insurance company who shall personally monitor that the electronic artificial limb has been installed and confirm the same to the SBI Bank where the Award amount would be deposited by the insurance company. Upon confirmation based on receipt of original invoice, such Bank shall release the payment of the fixed deposit to Ottobock Health Care India Pvt. Ltd. The interest on the FDR earned by that time shall be transferred to the Saving bank account of the petitioner. In terms of Chander Jeet Singh judgment, in the event petitioner fails to get the artificial limb installed from Ottobock Health Care Pvt. Ltd. within a period of 2 years, the amount of the two fixed deposit alongwith interest shall be refunded back by SBI Bank to insurance company.
(iii) Expenses relating to treatment:
20. Petitioner has relied upon Discharge slip, OPD slips and original medical bills as Ex.PW-1/6(colly). Petitioner has filed a separate sheet disclosing the amount expended in treatment. The same shows a total figure of Rs.15,61,361/-, but after verifying MACT NO.602/21 Vishnu Mandal v. Balram & Ors. P.No. 13 Of 22 BK : 14 : the same it comes out Rs.9,43,331/-. The same has not been disputed by the opposite party. Hence, so awarded towards medical expenses.
Apart from expenditure on treatment, considering the medical condition that the petitioner was exposed to, as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- under each head i.e. conveyance and special diet is granted to the petitioner. Rs.2,00,000/- is granted towards nursing attendant.
21. In this background, considering the material and evidence on record and the law on compensation in such like cases, as already discussed above, compensation in the present case is calculated as under for injured:
Sl. Pecuniary loss : - Quantum
no.
1. (I) Expenditure on treatment : Rs.9,43,331/-
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance : Rs.2,00,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : Rs.2,00,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing / attendant : Rs.2,00,000/-
(v) Loss of income:Rs.43,403/-X12 month Rs.5,20,836/-
(vi) Cost of artificial limbs (if Rs.6,18,030/-
applicable) :
(vii) Any other loss/expenditure : Future Rs.3,00,000/-
Medical expenses.
2. Non-Pecuniary Loss :
(I) Compensation of mental and physical Rs.1,00,000/-
shock :
(ii) Pain and suffering : Rs.2,00,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life : Rs.2,00,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration : Rs.2,00,000/-
(v) Loss of marriage prospects : Rs.5,00,000/-
MACT NO.602/21 Vishnu Mandal v. Balram & Ors. P.No. 14 Of 22 BK
: 15 :
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity (I) Percentage of disability assessed and The petitioner nature of disability as permanent or has suffered temporary 87% in relation to both lower limbs and and amputation of left leg above the knee
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Already granted expectation of life span on account of disability :
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity Already granted in relation to disability:
(iv) Loss of future Income: The Rs.1,14,18,808/-
functional disability is taken 87% in relation to both lower limbs and and amputation of left leg above the knee Total Compensation Rs.1,56,01,005/-
Deduction, if any, Nil
Total Compensation Rs.1,56,01,005/-
Interest Simple interest
@7.5% p.a. from
the date of filing
of Petition till
actual realization
of Award
amount/
compensation.
22. The total compensation payable to the petitioner/claimant would be Rs.1,56,01,005/- by insurance company with simple interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of petition MACT NO.602/21 Vishnu Mandal v. Balram & Ors. P.No. 15 Of 22 BK : 16 : till its actual realization.
23. In case, the interest of petitioner was stopped or excluded during the present inquiry proceedings, same is liable to be adjusted from the total interest calculated on the Award amount. Similarly, amount awarded and released as interim Award, if any, during pendency of the case, be deducted from the total compensation amount.
LIABILITY
24. As already decided, principal award amount/ compensation will be payable by insurance company with simple interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of petition till actual realization.
Directions Regarding Deposit of Award Amount in Bank:
25. In compliance of directions issued vide order dated 16.11.2021 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition Civil No.534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India the award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT SAVING ACCOUNT No. 00000042706875094, IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir in the prescribed format i.e. MCOP Number on the file of (Claims Tribunal Name) Date of award, Compensation Amount, Income Tax Deduction at Source, Bank Transaction Reference No./Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. In turn, the State Bank of India, Saket Courts Branch shall receive the deposited sum and capture the above information and furnish a MACT NO.602/21 Vishnu Mandal v. Balram & Ors. P.No. 16 Of 22 BK : 17 : statement of account on a daily basis to the Nazir of this Tribunal to reconcile the deposits of compensation and the respective MCOPs towards which such deposits are made. On such deposits being made, the insurance company shall submit a letter to the Nazir of this Tribunal enclosing a copy of the said bank advice, in prescribed format as above, as per which the deposit made to the bank account of this Tribunal, to enable this Tribunal to keep tab on the deposits made and the MCOPs for which they were made. The Payment advice for remittance of compensation is as under:
PAYMENT ADVICE FOR REMITTANCE OF
COMPENSATION :
............ Bank ................... To:
............... Court ........................ We confirm remittance of compensation as follows on instructions of ................................... (insurance company):-
MCOP Number On the file of (Claims Tribunal Name), Place Date of award Amount Deposited, Income Tax Deduction at Source, if any Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. Insurance company of offending vehicle, on deposit, shall also send a copy of the payment advice in above format to this Tribunal and serve a copy of the same on the claimants or their counsel as the case may be.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP).
26. This court is in receipt of the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & MACT NO.602/21 Vishnu Mandal v. Balram & Ors. P.No. 17 Of 22 BK : 18 : Ors whereby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has formulated MACAD(Motor Accident Claims Annunity Deposit Scheme) which has been made effective from 01.01.2019. The said orders dated 07.12.2018 also mentions that 21 banks including State Bank of India is one of such banks which are to adhere to MACAD. The State Bank of India, Saket Courts, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Apportionment:-
27. Another issue which is to be decided is out of such Award amount, how much is to be released at present and how much is to kept in the form of FDR for future financial used of the petitioner.
28. At this stage, it is relevant to the refer to the judgment of A. V. Padma & Ors. Vs., R. Venugopal & Ors. (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 378:
"......In the case of Susamma Thomas (supra), this Court issued certain guidelines in order to "safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries due to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation".
Even as per the guidelines issued by this Court Court, long term fixed deposit of amount of compensation is mandatory only in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows. In the case of illiterate claimants, the Tribunal is allowed to consider the request for lumpsum payment for effecting purchase of any movable property such as agricultural implements, rickshaws etc. to earn a living. However, in such cases, the Tribunal shall make sure that the amount is actually spent for the purpose and the demand is not a ruse to withdraw money. In the case of semi-illiterate claimants, the MACT NO.602/21 Vishnu Mandal v. Balram & Ors. P.No. 18 Of 22 BK : 19 : Tribunal should ordinarily invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. But if the Tribunal is satisfied for reasons to be stated in writing that the whole or part of the amount is required for expanding an existing business or for purchasing some property for earning a livelihood, the Tribunal can release the whole or part of the amount of compensation to the claimant provided the Tribunal will ensure that the amount is invested for the purpose for which it is demanded and paid. In the case of literate persons, it is not mandatory to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit.
The expression used in guideline No. (iv) issued by this Court is that in the case of literate persons also the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i), whereas in the guideline Nos.
(i), (ii), (iii) and (v), the expression used is that the Tribunal should. Moreover, in the case of literate persons, the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i) only if, having regard to the age, fiscal background and strata of the society to which the claimant belongs and such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks that in the larger interest of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded, it is necessary to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit.
Thus, sufficient discretion has been given to the Tribunal not to insist on investment of the compensation amount in long term fixed deposit and to release even the whole amount in the case of literate persons. However, the Tribunals are often taking a very rigid stand and are mechanically ordering in almost all cases that the amount of compensation shall be invested in long term fixed deposit. They are taking such a rigid and mechanical approach without understanding and appreciating the distinction drawn by this Court in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows MACT NO.602/21 Vishnu Mandal v. Balram & Ors. P.No. 19 Of 22 BK : 20 : and in the case of semiliterate and literate persons. It needs to be clarified that the above guidelines were issued by this Court only to safeguard the interests of the claimants, particularly the minors, illiterates and others whose amounts are sought to be withdrawn on some fictitious grounds. The guidelines were not to be understood to mean that the Tribunals were to take a rigid stand while considering an application seeking release of the money.
The guidelines cast a responsibility on the Tribunals to pass appropriate orders after examining each case on its own merits. However, it is seen that even in cases when there is no possibility or chance of the feed being frittered away by the beneficiary owing to ignorance, illiteracy or susceptibility to exploitation, investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit is directed by the Tribunals as a matter of course and in a routine manner, ignoring the object and the spirit of the guidelines issued by this Court and the genuine requirements of the claimants. Even in the case of literate persons, the Tribunals are automatically ordering investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit without recording that having regard to the age or fiscal background or the strata of the society to which the claimant belongs or such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks it necessary to direct such investment in the larger interests of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded to him.
The Tribunals very often dispose of the claimant's application for withdrawal of the amount of compensation in a mechanical manner and without proper application of mind. This has resulted in serious injustice and hardship to the claimants. The Tribunals appear to think that in view of the guidelines issued by this Court, in every case the amount of compensation should be invested in long term fixed deposit and under no circumstances the MACT NO.602/21 Vishnu Mandal v. Balram & Ors. P.No. 20 Of 22 BK : 21 : Tribunal can release the entire amount of compensation to the claimant even if it is required by him. Hence a change of attitude and approach on the part of the Tribunals is necessary in the interest of justice..."
29. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and the abovesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Supreme Court, out of the total award amount i.e. Rs.1,56,01,005/-,Rs.56,01,005/- be released to him and remaining Rs.1,00,00,000/- be kept in the form of monthly FDR of Rs.50,000/- alongwith simple interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of petition till its actual realization, in his bank account near his place of residence.
30. In accordance with the orders dated 08.02.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 in Rajesh Tyagi and others Vs. Jaibir Singh and others, Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager has been appointed as Nodal Officer of SBI having Phone no. 022-22741336/9414048606 and e-mail ID [email protected]. In case of any assistance or non compliance, the aforesaid Nodal Officer may be contacted to. A copy of this order be sent by e-mail to the aforesaid Nodal Officer of the aforesaid bank by the Ahlmad of the Court immediately in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court as contained in the orders dated 07.12.2018. The Nodal Officer of the bank shall ensure the disbursement of the award amount within three weeks of the receipt of the e-mail as mentioned in the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
MACT NO.602/21 Vishnu Mandal v. Balram & Ors. P.No. 21 Of 22 BK : 22 : SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1 Date of accident 14.08.2021 2 Name of injured Vishnu Mandal 3 Age of the injured 20 years 4 Occupation of the injured Policy Bazar Pvt. Ltd.
5 Income of the injured as on Rs.43,403/-PM the date of accident 6 Nature injury Grievous/disability 7 Medical treatment taken by Park hospital, Medanta Guragon, the injured: Nestiva, ISIC nad AIIMS Delhi hospital 8 Period of Hospitalization approximately 9-1/2 months 9 Whether any permanent 87% in relation to both lower disability?
limbs and and amputation of left leg above the knee
31. List for compliance on 11.07.2025.
Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA
Date:
Announced in open Court GUPTA 2025.05.28
17:30:47
On 28th May, 2025 +0530
(Charu Gupta)
PO-MACT-01(South-East)
Saket Court/ New Delhi
MACT NO.602/21 Vishnu Mandal v. Balram & Ors. P.No. 22 Of 22 BK