Delhi District Court
Ankit vs Manish Sharma on 6 December, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ATUL KUMAR GARG : PRESIDING
OFFICER : MACT : SOUTH DISTT. : SAKET COURTS :
NEW DELHI
MACT No. : 361/2017
1. Ankit
S/o Sh. Pravendra Singh
R/o H.No.72, Village Bhikhanpur,
PS Jaswant Nagar,
Distt. Etawah,
Uttar Pradesh .....injured
2. Yogesh
S/o Sh. Vishesh Babu,
R/o 616, Sultan Pur,
New Delhi .... injured
.... PETITIONERS
Versus
1. Manish Sharma
S/o Late Sh. Jeet Ram Sharma
R/o H. No.169, Village Devli,
New Delhi .... (Driver of car)
2. Sunder Taneja
S/o Late Sh. CR Taneja
R/o C-435, Sarita Vihar,
New Delhi ..... (Owner of car)
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Having its office at
Division No.3, Jeevan Vikas,
Second floor, 30-31A,
Asaf Ali Road,
New Delhi-110002 .....(Insurance company
for Tata Bus)
MACT No. 361/2017
ANKIT VS. MANISH KUMAR &Ors/ 07.12.2021 Page No. 1 of 19
(Later on deleted from the array of parties as the permit was
found to be fake)
4. Sh. Jagjit Singh
S/o Late Sh. Jaswant Singh
R/o J-26, South Extension,
New Delhi .....(Bus owner)
5. Balbir Singh
S/o Sh. Churu Ram
R/o H.No.64, Gupta Enclave,
Gali No.8 Vikas Nagar,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi ..... (Bus Driver)
6. New India Assurance Company Limited,
Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi-110092 ..... Insurance company
of bus
......RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution : 18.11.2014
Date of reserving of judgment/
order : 27.11.2021
Date of pronouncement : 06.12.2021
JUDGMENT:
1. This is a unique case where the petitioner had tried to chase the insured vehicle for seeking compensation in regard to the injury sustained to it in a road accident which was occurred on 14.10.2014 at about 11.45 pm near Sultan Pur Metro Station.
2. Initially the police has filed the DAR in the year 2014 in respect of two injured namely Ankit and Yogesh making the driver and registered MACT No. 361/2017 ANKIT VS. MANISH KUMAR &Ors/ 07.12.2021 Page No. 2 of 19 owner of the offending vehicle bearing no.DL 2C M 7987, Toyota Corrola car as respondent no.1 and 2. The vehicle was uninsured, Respondent no.1 has been challaned u/s 3/181/, 39/192, 146/96 MV Act. Thereafter finding vehicle uninsured, petitioner has filed the claim petition against five respondents including the present one claiming compensation from the bus in respect of which he was working as a helper mentioning therein that there was fault of both the vehicles by which his leg was crushed and it was amputated.
3. The fact of the present case need not having any big canvass :-
"On 14.10.2014, petitioner claimed to be on duty at bus bearing number DL 1P C 1750 as helper and he was helping the driver to park by giving signal and he was crushed while it was being driven backward by respondent no.5 of his bus, when one car bearing number DL 2C M 7987 which was being driven by respondent no.1 in a very high speed and struck in the bus. He was taken to the Fortis hospital. After preliminary investigation, he was taken to AIIMS Trauma Centre Delhi and thereafter he was removed to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital as his condition was deteriorated. His right leg was amputated.
4. Respondent no.1 and 2 had filed separate written statements. Respondent no.1 had filed detailed written statement stating that accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.5 due to which the alleged accident was happened as he was wrongly reversing the alleged vehicle at late night in MG Road. He has been falsely implicated in the alleged accident. Petitioner has concocted false and frivolous story in MACT No. 361/2017 ANKIT VS. MANISH KUMAR &Ors/ 07.12.2021 Page No. 3 of 19 the present case as the petitioner and respondent no.5 were not following the traffic rules because of which alleged accident was happened. He further submitted that without admitting his liability, amount claimed is too high, excessive and beyond comprehension.
5. Respondent no.2 had filed the written statement stating that claim is very excessive, exorbitant, unjust and unfair. There was no fault and negligence on the part of respondent no.2 in causing the alleged accident arising out of the car bearing number DL 2C M 7987 silver colour and he is no way connected with the said accident. He is rightful owner of the vehicle number DL 2C M 7987 silver colour. He had sold the vehicle to one Virender Kumar S/o Late Sh. Jeet Ram Sharma, R/o 303, Deoli Village, New Delhi -62 on 18.08.2011 at 1.30pm. The delivery receipt was executed in this regard. The aforesaid vehicle has suddenly got fire on 28.06.2011 near Madanpur Khaddar Mod while he was going to his house. The insurance company had given claim of a sum of Rs.2,26,900/- after inspection observing that it was a total loss. He was suggested to recover the rest of the amount by disposing off the salvage. He had sold the offending vehicle to the brother of the respondent no.1, who was driving the said vehicle at the time of accident. As such he submitted that no cause of action has been arisen.
6. Respondent no.4 and 5 being driver and owner of the bus in question had filed the written statement jointly stating that the petition suffers from mis-joinder and non-joinder of the parties. Petitioner has not impleaded the insurer of the offending vehicle No.DL 2C M 7987 allegedly involved in the alleged accident. It is the insurer of the offending vehicle MACT No. 361/2017 ANKIT VS. MANISH KUMAR &Ors/ 07.12.2021 Page No. 4 of 19 who is liable to make the payment of compensation. The name of Respondent no.4 and 5 are liable to be removed from the array of memo of parties because they were not even impleaded as a party in the DAR. Accident has been caused by rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1, hence no cause of action is arisen.
7. Respondent no.6 New India Insurance Company, who was impleaded as party after coming to know that bus was not insured with National Insurance Company Limited but with New India Insurance Company. It has been submitted that claim filed by the claimant is not maintainable in the present form and is bound to be dismissed. Present case is false, frivolous, baseless and an abuse of the process of law. It is submitted that as per the version of the FIR, the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the car bearing number DL 2C M 7987 which is the main tortfeasor. This is further corroborated by the site plan, mechanical inspection report of both the vehicles and the statements u/s 161 Cr.PC. Moreover the liability of the respondent is subject to the driver of the alleged offending vehicle holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. However he has not denied that the bus was insured with it.
8. After completion of the proceedings vide order dated 15.01.2016, following issues have been framed:-
ISSUES
1. Whether Ankit and Yogesh sustained injuries in road accident on 14.10.2014 at 11.45PM at M.G. Road near Sultanpur MACT No. 361/2017 ANKIT VS. MANISH KUMAR &Ors/ 07.12.2021 Page No. 5 of 19 Metro Station, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle no.DL 2C M 7987 being driven/used by Manish Kumar and owned by Sunder Taneja?
2. To what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled and from whom?
3. Relief.
9. In order to prove his contention the petitioner had examined six witnesses i.e. Ankit / petitioner himself, Jagjit Singh, Rajan Mishra, Alic Masih, SI Mahender Singh and Dr. Raj Kumar Bhartiya. In rebuttal, respondent no.1 Manish Sharma/driver of car had examined himself as RW1, Respondent no.2 Sunder Taneja had examined himself as R2W1 and Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal as R2W2, M. Ravi Kumar as R2W3, Respondent No.5 has examined himself as R5W1.
10. I have heard the arguments, perused the record and analyzed the witnesses examined by both the parties and my issue-wise findings are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1
11. Needless to say that for making someone entitled U/s 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle needs to be proved and to prove the same the Tribunal need not go into the technicalities because strict rules of procedure and evidence are not followed. Basically, in road accident cases, Tribunal has simply to quantify the compensation which is just, rational and reasonable on the basis of MACT No. 361/2017 ANKIT VS. MANISH KUMAR &Ors/ 07.12.2021 Page No. 6 of 19 enquiry. It is an admitted legal position that the negligence on part of the driver with respect to use of the vehicle needs to be established and the same is to be established on the principle of preponderance of probabilities as decided in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Harsh Mishra & Ors. III (2015) ACC 435 Delhi.
12. If we perused the testimony of PW1 minutely then it appears that he played hide and seek game in his examination in chief in the shape of affidavit and in the cross examination by claiming the liability of both the vehicles knowing very well that it was not so. In his affidavit Ex.PW1/1 he had stated that on 14.10.2014, while he was on duty at bus bearing no.DL IP C 1750 he alongwith driver Balbir Singh reached Sultan Pur Metro Station for taking the passengers from Sultan Pur Metro Station and since desired passengers taking sometime he decided to park the said bus in the service lane of Mehrauli Gurgaon Road. While removing the bus from the MG Road, respondent no.5 - driver Balbir Singh asked him to get down and was asked to help him in getting the bus reversed and when the said bus was being reversing, one car bearing number DL 2C M 7987 silver colour being driven at a very high speed by respondent no.1 had hit him and he is stucked/rammed from high speed. He screamed for stopping the bus but the respondent no.5 did not stop the bus and even the car rammed the bus and his left leg was crushed.
13. In the cross examination he had stated that he did not know how to drive vehicle. He admitted that while reversing the vehicle he was standing at the back towards one side. At that time he had not given the signal to reverse the vehicle but the driver of the said vehicle reversed the MACT No. 361/2017 ANKIT VS. MANISH KUMAR &Ors/ 07.12.2021 Page No. 7 of 19 vehicle. At that time he was seeing the other vehicles coming from the other side and all happened in a second. He further admitted that one Yogesh Kumar was also got injured in the same accident. He admitted that no where in his statement given to the police U/Sec. 161 Cr.PC he had alleged about the rash and negligence of the bus driver. He denied that he has produced Ex.PW1/G a forged, fabricated and a procured document.
14. It is also a matter of fact that PW5 SI Mahender Singh had filed the DAR in the court including the FIR No.528/14, U/Sec.279/337/338 IPC and 146/96, 39/192 and 2/181 MV Act, S Fatehpur Beri. The testimony of this witness remained un-rebutted and unchallenged.
15. RW1 Manish Sharma in his affidavit has also tried to play upon the Respondent no.5 for causing the accident for his rash and negligent driving. Had the bus driver not wrongly reversed then accident could not be happened.
16. The witness had admitted in cross examination that the copy of the DL was not on record. He admitted that there were electricity poles duty illuminated at the site of accident. He admitted that leg of Ankit was crushed between his car and aforesaid bus. He admitted that he had got released the said vehicle on supardari. He admitted that earlier vehicle was met with an accident and insurance company had declared the vehicle as total loss.
17. It is also the matter of fact that initially when the petition was filed, owner of the vehicle had stated that he had settled the matter with the MACT No. 361/2017 ANKIT VS. MANISH KUMAR &Ors/ 07.12.2021 Page No. 8 of 19 injured Yogesh for Rs.7000/- to which injured was agreed. However settlement could not take place.
18. Had the respondent no.4 and 5 have contributed anything in causing the accident by which the leg of the claimant was crushed and was amputated then certainly claimant would give the statement to the police. Testimony of RW5 SI Mahender Singh remained unchallenged and un- controverted in regard to the fact that DAR has been filed only against respondent no.1, who owned the vehicle. The petitioner himself had admitted that he had not given the statement to the police blaming the negligence of the rash and negligent act of respondent no.5 causing the accident while he was reversing the vehicle. It is MG Road where the accident was happened. The bus was reversing and suddenly on the MG Road the Toyota Corolla i.e. the offending vehicle has come and rammed into the bus by which the leg of the petitioner was got crushed. There was enough light on the road. RW1 had admitted in his cross examination that the electricity poles were duly illuminated. The Mechanical Inspection Report placed with the DAR of both the offending vehicles show that the car was got damaged from front bumper/ Grill/ 2 Head Lights damaged, front bonnet/ Left /RE fenders & Aptrons pressed/ Member pressed, Radiator and AC condenser pressed/ battery/ rubber/ plastic parts ft. electric wiring/engine parts / damaged. Front wind screen glass broken. Right side 1st and 2nd door scratched, dash board assly/ Steal assly damaged, front suspension Assly/ Damaged/ Dislodged. While the bus was hit from Rear bumper/back panel/ Rear number plate/ pressed/damaged.
19. The site plan shows that the accident was caused at point A MACT No. 361/2017 ANKIT VS. MANISH KUMAR &Ors/ 07.12.2021 Page No. 9 of 19 which is extreme left of the road near the service lane where the bus has been going to move. Respondent no.1 the driver of the offending car is either driving at the right side or left side of the road and he has no business of coming towards the extreme left. The testimony of IO remained unchallenged and DAR has not been disputed.
20. The speed of the car might be 70 or 80 kmph as deposed by PW1. Extensive damage caused to the car also buttress this fact. Had the car driver is vigilant then it could not be happened. PW1 was standing at the side when his leg was crushed between two. All the facts indicates that accident was caused due to the rash and negligent act of Respondent No.1.
21. Petitioner's effort to blame his own bus in which he was employed does not get any fruit. He had tried to implead his own bus after coming to know that the offending vehicle was uninsured.
22. The above said fact have also been proved that the respondent no.1 was not having any valid Driving license nor the car was insured. It was purchased from Respondent no.2. Car had also been declared a total loss by insurance company and same was given to the respondent no.2 for recovery of loss by selling in the salvage.
23. In view of the above discussion, the petitioner has proved this issue that the accident was caused by respondent no.1 while driving the vehicle no.DL 2C M 7987 in a rash and negligent manner, owned by respondent no.2.
MACT No. 361/2017ANKIT VS. MANISH KUMAR &Ors/ 07.12.2021 Page No. 10 of 19
24. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent no.1.
I S S U E No. 225. Now the court has to assess that how much compensation is to be given to the petitioners/ injured persons and from whom. Injured persons are entitled to damages for the injury suffered to them arising out of use of Motor Vehicle under both non-pecuniary and pecuniary heads. Since the offending vehicle i.e. DL 2C M 7987 was uninsured, therefore it was respondent no.1 and 2 who are liable to pay the compensation. Respondent no.3,4,5 and 6 are exonerated from any liability. Since it has been established that the driver of the offending car was not having any insurance and there was no fault of the bus driver of bus bearing registration number DL 1P C 1750.
COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF THE INJURED YOGESH Injured Yogesh stopped appearing in the matter after 2-3 occasions and did not pursue his case. Hence no award is passed in favour of injured Yogesh.
COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF THE INJURED ANKIT MEDICAL EXPENSES :
26. In the present case, the injured has suffered 70% permanent disability of right lower limb with right above knee amputation. Medical bills of Rs.1,58,705/- and OPD visiting charge of Rs.28,000/- are filed on record on his behalf. I therefore, award an amount of Rs.1,86,705/- to the MACT No. 361/2017 ANKIT VS. MANISH KUMAR &Ors/ 07.12.2021 Page No. 11 of 19 injured Ankit towards the medical expenses.
PAIN AND SUFFERINGS AND ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :
27. As per Ex.PW5/A, the petitioner/ injured Ankit has suffered 70% permanent injury with right above knee amputation. He was taken to Fortis hospital and after preliminary investigation was taken to AIIMS hospital and when his condition deteriorated. He was taken to Sir Ganga Ram hospital where his right leg was amputated and he remained admitted for three days. Looking into the injuries and treatment of the injured, I award Rs.1,00,000/- to the injured/petitioner Ankit towards his pain and sufferings and enjoyment of life.
SPECIAL DIET, CONVEYANCE AND ATTENDANT CHARGES :
28. In the present case the petitioner has not placed on record any document with regard to his special diet and attendant charges. However, the injuries on the person of the injured Ankit were such that he must have taken special diet for his early recovery. He must have spent some amount on attendant. Therefore, looking into all the facts, I award Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner/ injured Ankit towards his special diet, conveyance and attendant charges.
LOSS OF INCOME
29. The petitioner/ injured Ankit has suffered 70% physical disability of right lower limb. The petitioner's leg was crushed and was amputated. Looking into the injury of the petitioner he must have remained on bed for 6 months. Petitioner was working as a helper in the bus owned by PW2/Jagjit Singh and was earning Rs.9000/- per month. Thus, the loss MACT No. 361/2017 ANKIT VS. MANISH KUMAR &Ors/ 07.12.2021 Page No. 12 of 19 of income comes to Rs.54,000 /- (9000/- x 6).
FUTURE LOSS OF INCOME
30. As per the petition, the petitioner's leg was crushed and was amputated and hence he will require somebody's help even for his daily routine work. He would not be able to do many works in his whole life due to this disability. He shall be totally dependent upon others. As per the Adhar Card the date of birth of petitioner Ankit is 22.05.1996. The accident took place on 14.10.2014 therefore, he was at 18 years 5 months of age at the time of accident. Taking a multiplier of '18', the future loss of income comes to Rs.12600/- (Rs.9000/- + Rs. 9000/- x 40/100) x 12 x 18 X 70% = Rs.19,05,120/-. I therefore, award Rs.19,05,120/- to the petitioner towards loss of income/future Income.
Loss of Amenities and Married Life :
30. Due to the permanent disability, the petitioner would not be able to participate in the normal activities of his daily life to pursue his talents, recreation interest, hobbies and evocations. The injuries would also have an effect on his social and married life. I therefore, award Rs. 1,00,000/- to the petitioner towards loss of amenities and married life.
31. The total compensation in favour of the petitioner is assessed as under :
MEDICAL EXPENSES : Rs. 1,86,705/-
PAIN & SUFFERINGS & ENJOYMENT OF
LIFE : Rs. 1,00,000/-
SPEICAL DIET, CONVEYANCE &
ATTENDANT : Rs. 50,000/-
MACT No. 361/2017
ANKIT VS. MANISH KUMAR &Ors/ 07.12.2021 Page No. 13 of 19
LOSS OF INCOME : Rs. 54,000/-
LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME : Rs.19,05,120/-
LOSS OF AMENITIES & MARRIED LIFE : Rs. 1,00,000/-
============
TOTAL Rs. 23,95,825/-
============
LIABI LITY
32. As the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1, primary liability to compensate the petitioner remains with respondent no.
1. Since the vehicle was owned by respondent no.2, so, he is vicariously liable to compensate the petitioner. It is an admitted position on record that the vehicle was uninsured therefore, respondent no.1 and 2 are liable to compensate the petitioner.
33. Issue no. 2 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent no.1 and 2.
R E LI EF
34. In view of my findings, I award Rs.23,41,825/ - (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs, Forty One Thousand and Eight Hundred Twenty Five only) to the petitioner Ankit as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the DAR till its realisation.
Out of the awarded amount, a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lacs) is directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit in the following phased manner :
1. Rs. 1,00,000/- for a period of 01 years.
2. Rs. 1,00,000/- for a period of 02 years.
3. Rs. 1,00,000/- for a period of 03 years.
4. Rs. 1,00,000/- for a period of 04 years.MACT No. 361/2017
ANKIT VS. MANISH KUMAR &Ors/ 07.12.2021 Page No. 14 of 19
5. Rs. 1,00,000/- for a period of 05 years.
6. Rs. 1,00,000/- for a period of 06 years.
7. Rs. 1,00,000/- for a period of 07 years.
8. Rs. 1,00,000/- for a period of 08 years.
9. Rs. 1,00,000/- for a period of 09 years.
10.Rs. 1,00,000/- for a period of 10 years.
11.Rs.1,00,000 - for a period of 11 years
12.Rs.1,00,000 - for a period of 12 years
13.Rs.1,00,000 - for a period of 13 years
14.Rs.1,00,000 - for a period of 14 years
15.Rs.1,00,000 /- for a period of 15 years Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
35. In consonance to the idea by which part of the awarded amount is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit / savings account by Hon'ble high Court, respondent no. 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the petitioner with State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, against account of petitioner within a period of 30 days from today, failing which respondent no.1 and 2 shall be liable to pay future interest @ 6% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
36. The respondent no. 1 and 2 are directed to credit the amount directly to the MACT account of State Bank of India, District Court, Saket branch. Details of the bank i.e. IFSC code etc. have been provided to the ld. counsel for the respondents.
37. 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 FUND PARKING A/c 35195787436 IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir alongwith calculation of interest and to the Counsel for the petitioners.MACT No. 361/2017
ANKIT VS. MANISH KUMAR &Ors/ 07.12.2021 Page No. 15 of 19 MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE'(MCTAP)
38. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the State Bank of India, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, is directed to keep the awarded amount in the "fixed deposit / saving account'' in the following manner :-
• The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the petitioner/claimant by Automatic Credit of interest of their saving bank account with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi. • Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to petitioner/claimant after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimants / petitioners to facilitate identity. • No cheque book be issued to petitioner/claimant without the permission of this Court.
• The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the petitioner/claimant alongwith the photocopy of the FDR's . • The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to petitioner/claimant at the end of the fixed deposit period. • No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court. • Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court. • On the request of petitioner/claimant, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience.
• Petitioner/claimant shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, New Delhi.
• The bank is also directed to get the nomination form filled by the claimant at the time of preparation of FDRs.
• The bank is also directed to keep the money received from the respondents in an FDR in the name of the bank till the FDRs are prepared in the name of the claimant, so that the benefit of better interest may be given to the claimant for the said period. • The Manager, State Bank of India, District Court Saket branch MACT No. 361/2017 ANKIT VS. MANISH KUMAR &Ors/ 07.12.2021 Page No. 16 of 19 is directed not to release any amount to the petitioner from this branch, unless ordered by the Tribunal in terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 and CM Applications No. 32859/2017, 41125-41127/2017 in Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. dated 09.03.2018. It is made clear that the amount including the maturity amount of the FDRs shall be released to the petitioner through RTGS/NEFT directly in the personal bank account of the petitioner of the bank nearest to his place of residence, the details of which have been given by the petitioner to the Tribunal and same details shall be given by them to the Manager SBI, District Court Saket branch.DIRECTIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT No. 1 and 2
• The Respondents are directed to file the compliance report of its having deposited the awarded amount with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this Tribunal within a period of 30 days from today. • The Respondent no.1 and 2 are directed to furnish a copy of this award alongwith the cheque of the awarded amount to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, so as to facilitate the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch to have the identification of the claimant/petitioner in whose favour the award has been passed. • The Respondent no.1 and 2 shall intimate the claimant/petitioner about its having deposited the cheque in favor of the claimant in terms of the award, at the address of the claimant mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate him to withdraw the same.
Copy of this award / judgment be given to the claimant who is directed to furnish the same to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch for necessary compliance after his having received the notice of the deposit of awarded amount by the respondent no.1 and 2.
Copy of this Award / Judgment be given to the parties for MACT No. 361/2017 ANKIT VS. MANISH KUMAR &Ors/ 07.12.2021 Page No. 17 of 19 compliance.
The case is now fixed for compliance by the respondent no.1 and 2 for 06.01.2022.
FORM IV-B SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD Date of accident : 14.10.2014 Name of the injured : Ankit Age of the injured : 18 years 5 months at the time of accident.
Occupation of the injured : Helper in a bus
Income of the injured : Rs.9000/- p.m.
Nature of injury : Grievous
Period of hospitalization : Approx. 4 days
Whether any permanent disability? : Yes, 70%
Computation of Compensation
S. Heads Awarded by the
No. Claims Tribunal
1 Pecuniary Loss :
i Expenditure on treatment Rs. 1,86,705/-
ii. Special Diet, conveyance and attendant Rs. 50,000/-
iii Loss of Income Rs. 54,000/-
iv Study -------
v Any other loss which may 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 -------
MACT No. 361/2017
ANKIT VS. MANISH KUMAR &Ors/ 07.12.2021 Page No. 18 of 19
ii Pain and suffering & enjoyment of life Rs.1,00,000/-
iii Loss of amenities & married life Rs.1,00,000/-
iv Dis-figuration and marriage prospects
v Loss of marriage prospects
vi Compensation on account of permanent
disability
3 Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity :
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and nature 70%
of disability as permanent or temporary
(iii) Future Loss of Income Rs.19,05,120/-
4 TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.23,95,825 -
5 INTEREST AWARDED 6%
6 Total amount of interest Rs. 10,26,627/-
7 Total amount including interest Rs. 34,22,452/-
8 Award amount released Rs.19,22,452/-
9 Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.15,00,000 /-
10 Mode of disbursement of the award amount Some amount
to the claimant(s) released and some
amount kept by way
of FDR
11 Next date for compliance of the award. 06.01.2022
Pronounced in the open court
on 06th December, 2021
(ATUL KUMAR GARG)
Presiding Officer : MACT (S)
Saket Courts : New Delhi
MACT No. 361/2017
ANKIT VS. MANISH KUMAR &Ors/ 07.12.2021 Page No. 19 of 19