Delhi District Court
) Anil Patel S/O. Sh. Rajender Patel vs ) Sh. Rustam Khan S/O. Sh. Chan Khan on 4 May, 2012
-1-
IN THE COURT OF SH. D.K. MALHOTRA, ADDL. DISTRICT &
SESSIONS JUDGE CUM PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
(MACT No. 1087/10/09)
1) Anil Patel S/o. Sh. Rajender Patel
R/o. House No. 80, Ravidas Colony,
District Mewat, Haryana
----------Petitioner
Versus
1) Sh. Rustam Khan S/o. Sh. Chan Khan,
R/o. Village Nizampur, Tehsil Nuh, P.S. Nuh,
Distt. Mewat, Haryana
2) Sh. Nafeez Khan S/o. Sh. Abdul Khan
R/o. 123/06, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi
2nd Address :
60, Transport Centre, New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi
3) Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
60, Okhla Industrial Estate,
Phase-III, Opp. SBI,
New Delhi
---------Respondents
Date of institution---03.01.2009
Date of decision----- 04.05.2012
(Application u/s 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act
for grant of compensation)
******************************************
JUDGMENT:-
1. Petitioner aged about 32 years filed the present claim petition claiming therein a compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs alongwith interest @ 18% per annum on the ground that on 22.11.2008 petitioner/injured was loading his rickshaw with vegetables at Gajar Shed, Azadpur Mandi, New Subzi Mandi, Delhi then a truck No. HR-38-H-1865 driven by its driver at a very -2- high speed, rashly, negligently and without caring for the rules of traffic came and hit the petition. As a result of forceful impact the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries all over the body.The petitioner was treated by the doctors of BJRM Hospital, Delhi. A criminal case under section 279/337 IPC was registered against respondent no.1 vide FIR No. 289/337 in police station Adarsh Nagar.
2. Petitioner alleged that at the time of accident he was a rickshaw puller and was earning a sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month. Further stated that due to the injury sustained in the accident in question he had become permanent crippled person and is no more able to earn his livelihood. He claimed compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the respondents being driver and owner and insurance company under various pecuniary and non pecuniary heads.
3. Respondents no. 1 and 2 were proceeded exparte vide order dt. 20.07.09. Respondent no. 3 insurance company admitted that offending truck was insured with it but it tried to avoid its liability on some routine technical grounds.
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 29.09.09 by my Ld. Predecessor:
1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in road accident on 22.11.08 at about 10 p.m. at Gajar Shed, Azadpur Mandi, New Subzi Mandi, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. HR-38-H- 1865 being driven by R-1.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.-3-
5. In order to prove his case, petitioner examined himself as PW1 and proved his medical treatment papers Ex.PW1/1, medical bills Ex.PW1/2, copy of election I card Mark-A, treatment chart of Bone and Joint Hospital at his native village Mark-B and copy of permanent disability certificate Ex.PW1/3. No evidence lead on behalf of driver and insurance company.
6. I have heard counsel for parties and gone through the record. My decision on the above mentioned issues is as under:
Issue no.1:-
7. The proof required in MACT claim petition are less than the proof required to criminal offence or a civil case. The principles to be followed in the case of motor accident claims has been laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Guwahati in case cited as Renu Bala Paul and Ors. vs. bani Chakraborty and Ors. 1999 ACJ 634 wherein it is held that:
"In deciding a matter Tribunal should bear in mind the caution struck by the Apex Court that a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is neither a criminal case nor a civil case. In a criminal case in order to have conviction, the matter is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and in a civil case the matter is to be decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence, but in a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the standard proof is much below than what is required in a criminal case as well as in a civil case. No doubt before the Tribunal, there must be some material on the basis of which the Tribunal can arrive or decide things necessary to be decided for awarding compensation. But the Tribunal is not expected to take or to adopt the nicety of a civil or of a criminal case. After all, it is a summary inquiry and this is a legislation for the welfare of the society.
In N.K.V. Bros (P) Ltd. vs. M. Karumai Ammal & Ors. AIR 1980 SCC 1354, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:--4-
"Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, especially when truck and bus drivers operate nocturnally. This proverbial recklessness often persuades the courts, as has been observed by us earlier in other cases, to draw an initial presumption in several cases based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. We are emphasizing this aspect because we are often distressed by transport operators getting away with it thanks to judicial laxity, despite the fact that they do not exercise sufficient disciplinary control over the drivers in the matter of careful driving. The heavy economic impact of culpable driving of public transport must bring owner and driver to their responsibility to their "neighbour".
8. The police has prosecuted the respondent no.1 for causing the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by filing the charge sheet. Sh. Anil Patel/PW-1 being eye witness of accident in his statement specifically narrated the way and manner in which the accident took place and corroborated his story by way of affidavit. Witness has clearly stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of offending truck. No complaint has been lodged against driver and owner of the offending vehicle before any higher authority regarding the fact that R-1 has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of injured or IO. It is not the case of R-1 that injured or IO of the case nursed grudge or enmity with owner of the vehicle or they are known to each other. No evidence is led on behalf of R-1 and R-2 in support of contention of R-1 that accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle driven by R-1. Hence adverse inference has to be drawn against them. Nothing has come in cross-examination by insurance company that accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving of R-1. Testimony of PW1 is trustworthy and unimpeachable who deposed that -5- accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of R-1 due to which he sustained grievous injuries as mentioned above. Hence this issue is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
Issue no.2:-
9. Petitioner was taken to the hospital after sustaining injuries on 22.11.2008 which were grievous in nature and relied upon the disability certificate as per which his physical disability was assessed 30 per cent permanently.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Govind Yadav vs. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Civil Appeal No. 9014 of 2011 decided on 01.11.2011 has observed as under:
"The personal sufferings of the survivors and disabled persons are manifold. Some time they can be measured in terms of money but most of the times it is not possible to do so. If an individual is permanently disabled in an accident, the cost of his medical treatment and care is likely to be very high. In cases involving total or partial disablement, the term "compensation" used in section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act") would include not only the expenses incurred for immediate treatment, but also the amount likely to be incurred for future medical treatment/care necessary for a particular injury or disability caused by an accident. A very large number of people involved in motor accidents are pedestrians, children, women and illiterate persons. Majority of them cannot, due to sheer ignorance, poverty and other disabilities, engage competent lawyers for proving negligence of the wrongdoer in adequate measure. The insurance companies with whom the vehicles involved in the accident are insured usually have battery of lawyers on their panel. They contest the claim petitions by raising all possible technical objections for ensuring that their clients are either completely absolved or -6- their liabilities minimized. This results in prolonging the proceedings before the Tribunal. Sometimes the delay and litigation expenses' make the award passed by the Tribunal and even by the High Court (in appeal) meaningless. It is, therefore, imperative that the officers, who preside over the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal adopt a proactive approach and ensure that the claims filed under Sections 166 of the Act are disposed of with required urgency and compensation is awarded to the victims of the accident and/or their legal representatives in adequate measure. The amount of the compensation in such cases should invariably include pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Private Limited MANU/SC/0146/1995: (1995) 1 SCC 551, this Court while dealing with a case involving claim of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, referred to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Ward v. James (1965) - All ER 563, Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Volume 12 (page 446) and observed:
"Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance, (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial, (iii) other material loss. So for non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future, (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit;-7-
(iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e, on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life".
In the same case, the court further observed:
"In its very nature whenever a tribunal or a court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guesswork, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standards".
In Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka MANU/SC/0803/2009: (2009) 6 SCC 1, the three-Judge Bench was dealing with a case arising out of the complaint filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. While enhancing the compensation awarded by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission from Rs. 15 lakhs to Rs. 1 crore, the Bench made the following observations which can appropriately be applied for deciding the petitions filed under Section 166 of the Act:
"At the same time we often find that a person injured in an accident leaves his family in greater distress vis-...-vis a family in a case of death. In the latter case, the initial shock gives way to a feeling of resignation and acceptance, and in time, compels the family to move on. The case of an injured and disabled person is, however, more pitiable and the feeling of hurt, helplessness, despair and often destitution ensures every day. The support that is needed by a severely handicapped person comes at an enormous price, physical, financial and emotional, not only on the victim but even more so on his family and attendants and the stress saps their energy and destroys their equanimity".-8-
In Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan Manu/SC/1303/2009:
(2009) 13 SCC 422, this Court reiterated that the compensation awarded under the Act should be just and also identified the factors which should be kept in mind while determining the amount of compensation. The relevant portions of the Judgment are extracted below:
The compensation which is required to be determined must be just. While the claimants are required to be compensated for the loss of their dependency, the same should not be considered to be a windfall. Unjust enrichment should be discouraged. This Court cannot also lose sight of the fact that in given cases, as for example death of the only son to a mother, she can never be compensated in monetary terms.
In Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Limited Manu/SC/0777/2010: (2010) 10 SCC 254, the Court considered the plea for enhancement of compensation made by the Appellant, who was a student of final year of engineering and had suffered 70% disablement in a motor accident. After noticing factual matrix of the case, the Court observed:
"We do not intend to review in detail state of authorities in relation to assessment of all damages for personal injury. Suffice it to say that the basis of assessment of all damages for personal injury is compensation. The whole idea is to put the claimant in the same position as ho was insofar as money can. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that the victim has done no wrong; he has suffered at the hands of the wrongdoer and the court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered".
In Raj Kumar V. Ajay Kumar Manu/SC/1018/2010: (2011) 1 SCC 343, the court considered some of the precedents and held:-9-
"The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, ('the 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 for 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 hie inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned".
In our view, the principles laid down in Arvind Kumar Mishra vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. (supra) and Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar (supra) must be followed by all the Tribunals and the High Court in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily. If the victim of the accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident".
The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages) I)Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourising food and miscellaneous expenditure.
- 10 -
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):
a) Damages for pain suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
b) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
c) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), iii) (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.
We shall now consider whether the compensation awarded to the petitioner is just and reasonable or he is entitled to enhanced compensation under any of the following heads:
i) Loss of earning and other gains due to the amputation of leg.
ii) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
iii)Future medical expenses.
iv)Compensation for pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the accident.
v) Loss of amenities including loss of the prospects of marriage.
vi)Loss of expectation of life.
- 11 -
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Govind Yadav vs. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Civil Appeal No. 9014 of 2011 decided on 01.11.2011 has further observed as under:
"In this view of the matter, in our view, it would be difficult to hold that for future medical expenses which are required to be incurred by a victim, fresh award could be passed. However, for such medical treatment, the court has to arrive at a reasonable estimate on the basis of the evidence brought on record."
"After the aforesaid judgment, the cost of living as also the cost of artificial limbs and expenses likely to be incurred for periodical replacement of such limb has substantially increased. Therefore, it will be just and proper to award a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the appellant for future treatment. If this amount is deposited in fixed deposit, the interest accruing on it will take care of the cost of artificial limb, fees of the doctor and other ancillary expenses."
"The compensation awarded by the Tribunal for pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the amputation of leg was meager. It is not in dispute that the appellant had remained in the hospital for a period of over three months. It is not possible for the tribunals and the courts to make a precise assessment of the pain and trauma suffered by a person whose limb is amputated as a result of accident. Even if the victim of accident gets artificial limb, he will suffer from different kinds of handicaps and social stigma throughout his life. Therefore, in all such cases, the Tribunals and the Courts should make a broad guess for the purpose of fixing the amount of compensation. Admittedly, at the time of accident, the Appellant was a young man of 24 years. For the remaining life, he will suffer the trauma of not being able to do his normal work. Therefore, we feel that ends of justice will be met awarding him a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- in lieu of pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the amputation of leg."
"The compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the loss of amenities was also meager. It can only be a matter of imagination as to how the appellant will have to live for the rest of life with one artificial leg. The Appellant can be expected to live for at least 50 years. During this period he
- 12 -
will not be able to live like normal human being and will not be able to enjoy the life. The prospects of his marriage have considerably reduced. Therefore, it would be just and reasonable to award him a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life."
Pecuniary damages (Special damages) Conveyance and special diet
10. As far as conveyance charges and special diet is concerned though no proof has been filed by petitioner but because of the amputation of leg and he has to go and travel in a difficult circumstances and spent more amount on conveyance charges that too on a higher side has to be incurred by the petitioner because of amputation of leg. Hence, I allow a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards conveyance charges by taking judicial notice of the fact that because of amputation of leg he cannot travel normally and he must have spent this much amount on conveyance.
11. As far as special diet is concerned though no proof is placed on record, judicial notice can be taken of the fact that because of the grievous injuries suffered by the petitioner, petitioner is required to take special foods like fruits, juices etc. and will be required to take special nourishment because of the grievous injuries by the injured. He must have spent some amount on the same of which there is normally no proof. Hence, I award a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards special diet.
12. However, non-peculiar damage are concerned, petitioner is entitled to loss of income. Petitioner has suffered permanent disability because of amputation of leg. He was a rickshaw puller which is opined to be 49% by the doctor concerned when the disability certificate was exhibited on record which was not disputed. As per the judgment of
- 13 -
Hon'ble Supreme Court if the formal proof of exhibition of document is not objected to and if document is admissible such objections stood waived. Even otherwise, as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2011 TAC 785 SC, it was held by Hon'ble Justice R. V. Raveendran & H. L. Gokhale, if both the parties are agreed, examination of doctors should be dispensed with to prove the disability certificate as if the doctor is required to be examined to prove the certificate, he would have to leave his operation etc. and he could have saved ten lives if he not come and appear before the Tribunal and waited for deposition of disability certificate. Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically stated if agreed by the other party examination of doctor should be dispensed with. In the present case though the insurance company did not specifically agreed to exhibit the disability certificate but it did not object to the exhibition of the disability certificate thereby giving consent technically and as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dispensing with the mode of the proof which could not be challenged by him specifically and agreed to the exhibition of the disability certificate. Even otherwise, it is a case of amputation of half leg in the accident, to which the judgment of Govind Yadav applies. Doctor has opined physical disability of 49% as per the judgment of Hon'ble Mr. Ranganath Misra J reported in criminal writ petition 270/88 decided on 28/08/89. General guidelines were issued that presence of examination of doctor to prove his report should not be generally insisted unless it is specifically required. Further, it was held that : -
"we also hope and trust that our law courts will not summon a medical professional to give evidence unless the evidence is necessary and even if he is summoned; attempt should be made to see that the men in this profession are not made to wait and waste time unnecessarily
- 14 -
and it is known that our law Courts always have respect for the men in the medical field".
13. Counsel for the insurance company has cited judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it was held that whether author of the document has not been examined the report of disability of 60% given by the civil surgeon after two years should not be relied upon and doubted authenticity of the disability certificate giving disability to be 66% on the ground that it is not possible to know whether civil surgeon is available or not on what basis he has given the disability certificate especially if it was given after two years and there was no evidence on record to show whether he actually treated the patient or on what basis he gave the certificate and held the judgment of the Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court assessing 30% permanent disability. Counsel for the insurance company states that observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if author of the disability certificate has not been examined the disability certificate should not be relied upon is not incumbent with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India of 2011 and 1988 specially in the case of amputation of leg which is feasible and it being a case of rickshaw puller due to amputation of leg he cannot pull the rickshaw when functional disability in his case being 90% as per the judgment of Govind Yadav and Palraj Vs. Divisional Controller, NEKRTC of Justice Altamas Kabir 2011 and 2012.
14. Under the circumstances I consider loss of income of six month to be appropriate loss of income of the injured who has suffered ambiguity of leg and who was a rickshaw puller though he was temporarily debarred from pulling the rickshaw in future. He must have been temporarily out of job for six months at least due to amputation of leg suffered by him. There is no proof of income of the injured hence there is no option but to take the
- 15 -
minimum wages as on the date of the accident skilled worker being rickshaw puller being Rs. 3849/- so loss of income comes to Rs. 3849 x 6 months = Rs. 23076/-.
15. This is a case of permanent disability where the functional disability is 90% in view of my discussion made above, hence, petitioner is entitled to future loss of income arising the future loss of income as income is to be assessed on the basis of minimum wages + 50% increases as the wages are going to be doubled within ten years as per the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Justice Midha, Justice Kailash Gambhir, Justice Reva Khetrapal and Justice Indermeet Kaur Kochar with 50% increase in minimum wages be taken as mean increase of the wages to assess the income of the injured for future loss of income therefore,I grant a sum of Rs. 11,08,512/- (3849 + 50% x 12 X 16 ) as per judgment of Sarla Verma as on the date of accident age of the injured was 32 years and in case of injury as per the judgment of Hon'ble High Court no deduction is to be carried out towards personal expenses. Hence, petitioner is entitled for special damages as far as future medical expenses petitioner is entitled to actual medical expenses of Rs. 26,000/-. Bills have been placed on record.
16. As far as the future medical expenses are concerned petitioner has to install artificial limb for day to day functioning and as per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court on the basis of standard of installation of artificial limb when cost of labour was Rs. 18,000/- Hon'ble Supreme Court in Govind Yadav case granted compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- while observing that the cost of living as well as cost of artificial leg and expenditure for the replacement of artificial leg has substantially increased since artificial leg is to be replaced every two to three years for which operation is required and also changed artificial leg and at the time the
- 16 -
award was passed in 1999 ACJ 140 the cost of this was Rs. 18,000/-. Now the cost of installation is about 50,000/- per limb. Even by the conservative estimates falling the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court Govind Yadav I grant a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards future medical expenses to the petitioner since this amount will be deposited in fixed deposit.
17. Furthermore, because due to the accident there is amputation of leg of the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to non pecuniary damages that general damages towards pain, suffering and trauma caused due to amputation of leg in hospital for quite some time. It is not possible for the Tribunal to assess the pain and trauma suffered by a person as stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Govind Yadav's case whose leg was amputated and he would have suffered through out his life and therefore, for this purpose an amount of compensation, admittedly at the time of accident the injured was a young man of 32 years for remaining life he will suffer trauma and will not able to live normal life. Thus, in view of judgment Hon'ble supreme Court in Govind Yadav's case I grant a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- in lieu of pain and suffering and trauma caused due to amputation of leg. Further, the petitioner is entitled to loss of amenities cited Hon'ble S.C. In Govind Yadav's case.
18. It can be only a matter of imagination as to how the petitioner will have to live further life with one artificial leg. He will have to live 50 years and during this period he will not be able to live as normal human being and will not be able to enjoy the life. Therefore, following the decision given in case of Govind Yadav of Hon'ble S.C because it would be just and reasonable to award him Rs. 1,50,000/- for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life.
- 17 -
19. In view of the above discussions, this issue is decided in favour of petitioner by holding that he is entitled to get the following total compensation from the respondent/insurance company only:
A) Pecuniary damages (Special damages):
a) Medical bills and expenses-----------------------------Rs. 26,000/-/-
b) Future medical expenses-------------------------------Rs. 2,00,000/-
c) Special diet------------------------------------------------- Rs. 20,000/-
d) Conveyance charges ------------------------------------ Rs. 25,000/-
e) Loss of income -------------------------------------------- Rs. 23,076/-
f) Future loss of income-------------------------------------Rs.11,08,512/-
B) Non-pecuniary damages (General damages):
a) Loss of amenities and enjoyment of life------------Rs. 1,50,000/-
b) Pain, sufferings and trauma ---------------------------Rs. 1,50,000/-
__________________
Total Rs. 17,02,588/-
Issue no.3 (Relief):-
20. On the basis of findings given above, present petition is disposed off and respondent no. is directed to pay sum of Rs. 17,02,588/- to the petitioner alongwith interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of institution of the petition i.e. 03/01/2009 till this amount is fully paid in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bhudia Devi & Ors. Reported as 2010 ACJ 2045.
21. Insurance company is further directed to make the payment of Rs. 70,000/- towards lawyer's fees in view of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi Mr. Justice J. R. Midha reported in Sat Prakash Vs. Jag II 2010 ACC 914
- 18 -
by making a separate cheque in the name of Sh. Sumit Gupta, Advocate, Enrollment No. D-518/98(R).
22. Out of the total amount of compensation awarded to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- be kept in the form of FDR for a period of five years with SBI , District Courts, Rohini. Out of the remaining amount a blocked saving bank account for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- be opened in the name of the petitioner with SBI District Courts, Rohini to be released to the applicant at the time of installment of artificial limb and expenditure incurred thereto on showing the actual bills.
23. Remaining amount alongwith the accrued interest will be deposited in Saving Bank Account with liberty to withdraw Rs. 7,000/- per month towards personal expenses. In case the petitioner transfer the residence out of Delhi to his permanent village Katghara Anchal, Distt. Khagaria, Bihar he shall open a saving bank account there and SBI District Court, Rohini, shall make arrangement of transfer of fund electronically every month to the petitioner at his village at Katghara through the branch of SBI at that place where the petitioner will open the saving bank account. Insurance company to make the payment of award within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.
Copy of this judgment be given to petitioner and counsel for respondent no.3 Insurance Company and file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (D.K. MALHOTRA)
Court on 04.05.2012 JUDGE, MACT (OUTER-II)
DELHI