Delhi District Court
Thaitanglung Kamei vs Gurmeet Singh Sodhi And Ors.; on 4 November, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ATUL KUMAR GARG : PRESIDING
OFFICER : MACT : SOUTH DISTT. : SAKET COURTS :
NEW DELHI
MACT No. 193/2022;
Thaitanglung Kamei Vs Gurmeet Singh Sodhi and ors.;
FIR No. 633/21; PS Ambedkar Nagar.
1. THAITANGLUNG KAMEI
S/o Sh. Kadijai Kamil,
H.No. 138-J/3, Munirka,
New Delhi.
.................Injured person
........... Petitioner
Versus
1. Gurmeet Singh Sodhi,
Manjeet Singh,
H.no. 746, Gali NO. 25,
DDA Flats, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar,
New Delhi.
..... (Driver-cum-owner)
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company,
New Delhi
........ (Insurance Company )
...[Respondents)
Date of Institution : 29.06.2022
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 31.10.2022
Date of pronouncement : 04.11.2022
JUDGMENT:
1. By this judgment, I shall dispose of the Detailed Accident Report MACT No. 193/2022;
Thaitanglung Kamei Vs Gurmeet Singh Sodhi and ors.; FIR No. 633/21; PS Ambedkar Nagar. 04.11.2022 Page No. 1 of 17 (DAR) filed by the SHO of PS Ambedkar Nagar for the injuries sustained to the injured Thaitanglung Kamei in a road accident occurred on 16.11.2021 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. DL-3S-FG-4615, being driven and owned by Gurmeet Singh Sodhi and insured with ICICI Lombard General Insurance company/ the respondent no. 2.
2. The facts of this case need not having any big canvas:-
"On 16.11.2021 at about 12:10 am, injured was going to Tigri for taking food from Munirka on his scooty Honda Activa DL-6S-BA-0364. After crossing the Chirag Delhi flyover at Shekh Sarai Red Light ahead of CNG Pump BRT Road, in the meantime, one scooty NTRO No. DL-3S-FG-4615 coming in a wrong side being driving in a rash and negligent manner had hit his scooty. Resulting to which he sustained injuries and his scooty was broken. PCR was called and he was removed to the hospital.
MACT No. 193/2022;
Thaitanglung Kamei Vs Gurmeet Singh Sodhi and ors.; FIR No. 633/21; PS Ambedkar Nagar. 04.11.2022 Page No. 2 of 17
3. Driver cum owner has not filed the written statement.
4. Legal offer has been filed on behalf of the insurance company.
5. After completion of the pleadings, following issues have been framed vide order dated 05.09.2022:-
1) Whether the injured has suffered injury in the road accident occurred on 16.11.2021 at around 12.10 am at near CNG Pump BRT Road, Near Pushpa Bhawan, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing no. DL-3S-FG-4615 being driven and owend by the respondent no. 1 and insured with respondent no. 3 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company)? ... (OPP).
2) To what amount of compensation the injured is entitled and from whom?
3) Relief.
6. In order to substantiate his contention, petitioner/ injured has examined himself as PW 1 who has tendered his affidavit as Ex. PW 1/A. He has relied upon the following documents:-
MACT No. 193/2022;
Thaitanglung Kamei Vs Gurmeet Singh Sodhi and ors.; FIR No. 633/21; PS Ambedkar Nagar. 04.11.2022 Page No. 3 of 17
1. Ex. A-1 is the colured photograph of the injured running into two pages.
2. Ex. A-2 is the discharge summary (part of DAR)from page 8-14.
3. Ex. A-3 is the coloured copy of the scooty driven by the deponent at the time of accident.
4. Ex. A-4 is the repairing bill of the scooty. (OSR).
7. This witness was put to the test of cross examination wherein he deposed that he is not in possession of any driving license because the same has been lost along with other documents in the previous accident. He further deposed that he got prepared his driving license from Tamenglong District, Manipur. He denied that he was not wearing helmet at the time of accident. At the time of accident, he was running a shop in Munirka. He admitted that he has not not filed any document in regard to running the shop at Munirka. He denied that no damage was caused to the scooty. He denied that the respondent no. 1 was not coming from wrong side. He denied that no accident was caused by the respondent no. 1. He did not remember the scooty number in which he was traveling. He denied MACT No. 193/2022;
Thaitanglung Kamei Vs Gurmeet Singh Sodhi and ors.; FIR No. 633/21; PS Ambedkar Nagar. 04.11.2022 Page No. 4 of 17 that he was not wearing the helmet at the time of accident. He denied that the bill of repairing are forged and fabricated. He was not aware whether the scooty was insured or not in which he was traveling. He admitted that he has not filed any income proof. He deposed that he is XIIth pass. However, he has not placed any document in this regard. He denied that he is the co-owner of the grocery shop. He denied that he is not earning Rs. 60,000/- per month. He admitted that he has not filed any treatment record. He admitted that he has not suffered any disability from the injury sustained in the road accident.
8. Respondents have not chosen to examine any witness in defence.
9. I have heard the arguments at bar, perused the records and examined the witnesses brought and examined by the parties respectively and my issue-wise findings are as follows:-
ISSUE NO. 1
10.It is well settled law that where petition under Section 166 of the Act MACT No. 193/2022;
Thaitanglung Kamei Vs Gurmeet Singh Sodhi and ors.; FIR No. 633/21; PS Ambedkar Nagar. 04.11.2022 Page No. 5 of 17 is instituted, it becomes the duty of the petitioner to establish rash and negligent driving by the driver. In a petition under Motor Vehicles Act, Tribunal need not go into the technicality 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 enquiry. Though it is an admitted legal position that the negligence on the part of driver with respect to the use of vehicle needs to be established but the same is to be established on the principles of preponderance of probabilities as decided in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Harsh Mishra & Ors. III(2015) ACC 435 Delhi.
11.In the present case, factum of accident has not been disputed. The respondent no. 1 being the driver cum owner has not contested the DAR. The respondent no. 3 has not examined any witness in their defence. Insurance company has filed the legal offer in the present case. Sinche the insurance company has filed the legal offer, there is no further discussion is required in proving this issue. Offending vehicle was insured at the time of accident. Therefore, it has been MACT No. 193/2022;
Thaitanglung Kamei Vs Gurmeet Singh Sodhi and ors.; FIR No. 633/21; PS Ambedkar Nagar. 04.11.2022 Page No. 6 of 17 proved that the accident has been occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing no. DL-3S-FG- 4515 as a result, the injured has suffered grievous injury.
Hence, this issue goes in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2
12.Now, the court has to assess as to how much compensation be awarded to the claimant and by whom? First of all the court has to decide as to how much compensation is given to the claimants.
13.An injured in a road accident is entitled to the compensation for the pecuniary and non pecuniary heads:-
PAIN AND SUFFERINGS AND ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :
14.As per Ex. PW A-2 i.e., discharge summary, the petitioner/ injured Thai Tang Lung Kamil was diagnosed with "SOFT TISSUE INJURY". The injuries on the person of the petitioner/ injured Thai Thaitanglung Kamei has been opined to be grievous in nature. He was discharged on the same day.
MACT No. 193/2022;
Thaitanglung Kamei Vs Gurmeet Singh Sodhi and ors.; FIR No. 633/21; PS Ambedkar Nagar. 04.11.2022 Page No. 7 of 17 Looking into the injuries and treatment of the petitioner, I award Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner towards his pain and sufferings and enjoyment of life.
SPECIAL DIET, CONVEYANCE AND ATTENDANT
CHARGES :
15.In the present case the petitioner has not placed on record any document with regard to his special diet, conveyance and attendant charges. However, the injuries on the person of the injured Thaitanglung Kamei were such that he must have taken special diet for his early recovery. He must have spent some amount on conveyance and attendant. Therefore, looking into all the facts, I award Rs. 30,000/- to the petitioner/ injured towards his special diet, conveyance and attendant charges.
LOSS OF INCOME:-
16.The petitioner/ injured stated that at the time of accident, the injured is a co-owner of a grocery shop at Munirka New Delhi. He used to transport organic vegetables from Manipur and supplied to North East Grocery shops in various parts of Delhi like Kishangarh, MACT No. 193/2022;
Thaitanglung Kamei Vs Gurmeet Singh Sodhi and ors.; FIR No. 633/21; PS Ambedkar Nagar. 04.11.2022 Page No. 8 of 17 Munirka, Chirag Dilli, Safdarjung etc.. He deposed that this is the only source of his income and used to earn profit on an average a sum of Rs. 60,000/- per month from the business. However, he has not placed on record any document in regard to his income. He has also not placed on record any document in regard to the co- ownership of the grocery shop. Further he deposed that he is XIIth pass, however, he has not even placed on record any document in regard to his educational qualification. Therefore, this court is left with no option, but to take the minimum wages prevailed at the time of accident in Delhi. The accident occurred on 16.11.2021 and the minimum wages of unskilled person in Delhi at the time of accident. The minimum wages of the unskilled person were Rs. 16,064/-. Therefore, the income of the injured is taken as Rs. 16,064/- per month. The injuries on the person of the injured were such that he must have remained out of work at least for four months. Thus, the loss of income comes to Rs. 48,192/- (16,064/- x 3). I therefore award the petitioner the loss of income comes to Rs. 48,192/-.
17. It is an admitted fact that the victim did not have any driving MACT No. 193/2022;
Thaitanglung Kamei Vs Gurmeet Singh Sodhi and ors.; FIR No. 633/21; PS Ambedkar Nagar. 04.11.2022 Page No. 9 of 17 license to run the vehicle. Therefore, he has also contributed at least in causing the accident. So, the amount 20% would be appropriate for deduction from the head of Pain and Suffering and Enjoyment of Life.
18.The total compensation in favour of the petitioner Thaitanglung Kamei is assessed as under :
PAIN & SUFFERINGS & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :Rs. 50,000.00 SPEICAL DIET, CONVEYANCE & ATTENDANT CHARGES :Rs. 30,000.00 LOSS OF INCOME :Rs. 48,192.00 =============== TOTAL :Rs. 1,28,192.00
- Rs. 10,000.00 =============== Total amount of compensation after deducting the contributory negligence of 20% from the head of Pain and Suffering and Enjoyment of Life. ============ Rs. 1,18,192.00 ============== MACT No. 193/2022;
Thaitanglung Kamei Vs Gurmeet Singh Sodhi and ors.; FIR No. 633/21; PS Ambedkar Nagar. 04.11.2022 Page No. 10 of 17 R E LI EF
19.In view of my findings, I award Rs. 1,18,192/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighteen Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Two Only) to the petitioner Thaitanglung Kamei as compensation along-with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its realisation. The entire amount is directed to be released to the injured petitioner.
LIABILITY
20.As regards the liability, the offending vehicle was being driven and owned by respondent no.1, therefore primary and vicarious liability to compensate the petitioner is that of respondent no.1. It is an admitted position on record that the offending vehicle was insured at the time of accident. Therefore, it is the respondent no. 2 who is contractually liable to compensate the petitioner being the insurer. Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
MACT No. 193/2022;
Thaitanglung Kamei Vs Gurmeet Singh Sodhi and ors.; FIR No. 633/21; PS Ambedkar Nagar. 04.11.2022 Page No. 11 of 17
21.It is ordered that no amount shall be released to the petitioner unless he produces his passbook in the Tribunal having the endorsement that "no cheque book and no ATM Card has been issued and will not be issued to the petitioner till the entire award amount is exhausted".
22.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. 2 is 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. 2 shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
23.The respondent no. 2 is 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 insurance company.
24. 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. 193/2022;
Thaitanglung Kamei Vs Gurmeet Singh Sodhi and ors.; FIR No. 633/21; PS Ambedkar Nagar. 04.11.2022 Page No. 12 of 17
25.MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE'(MCTAP).
26.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 :-
27.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.
28.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.
29.No cheque book be issued to petitioner/claimant without the permission of this Court.
30.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 along-with the photocopy of the FDR's .
31.The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to petitioner/claimant at the end of the fixed deposit period.
32.No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court.
33.Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court. MACT No. 193/2022;
Thaitanglung Kamei Vs Gurmeet Singh Sodhi and ors.; FIR No. 633/21; PS Ambedkar Nagar. 04.11.2022 Page No. 13 of 17
34.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.
35.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.
36.The bank is also directed to get the nomination form filled by the claimant at the time of preparation of FDRs.
37.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.
38.The Manager, State Bank of India, District Court Saket branch 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 MACT No. 193/2022;
Thaitanglung Kamei Vs Gurmeet Singh Sodhi and ors.; FIR No. 633/21; PS Ambedkar Nagar. 04.11.2022 Page No. 14 of 17 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 RESPONDENTS
39.The Respondent no. 2 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.
40.The respondent no. 2 directed to furnish a copy of this award along-
with 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.
41.The Respondent no. 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.
42.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 respondents.
43.The next date for compliance is on 05.12.2022. MACT No. 193/2022;
Thaitanglung Kamei Vs Gurmeet Singh Sodhi and ors.; FIR No. 633/21; PS Ambedkar Nagar. 04.11.2022 Page No. 15 of 17 FORM IV-B SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE OF THAITANGLUNG KAMEI Date of accident : 16.11.2021 Name of the injured : THAITANGLUNG KAMEI Age of the injured: 26 Years Nature of injury : Grievous Computation of Compensation S. Heads Awarded by the No. Claims Tribunal 1 Pecuniary Loss :
i Expenditure on treatment -----
ii Expenditure on special diet, conveyance and Rs. 30,000/-
attendant
iii Loss of Income Rs. 48,192/-
iv Loss of 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 ------- ii Pain and suffering & enjoyment of life Rs. 50,000/-
iii Loss of amenities -----
iv Dis-figuration and marriage prospects -----
v Loss of marriage prospects Rs. 50,000/-
vi Compensation on account of permanent -----
disability
MACT No. 193/2022;
Thaitanglung Kamei Vs Gurmeet Singh Sodhi and ors.; FIR No. 633/21; PS Ambedkar Nagar. 04.11.2022 Page No. 16 of 17
3 Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity :
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and nature ----
of disability as permanent or temporary
(iii) Future Loss of Income ----
4 TOTAL COMPENSATION (after deducting Rs. 1,18,192/-
the contributory negligence of 20% from the head of Pain and Suffering and enjoyment of life) 5 INTEREST AWARDED 7% 6 Total amount of interest Rs. 2,921/- 7 Total amount including interest Rs. 1,21,113/- 8 Award amount released Rs. 1,21,113/- 9 Award amount kept in FDRs ----
10 Mode of disbursement of the award amount Entire amount is
to the claimant(s) directed to be
released.
11 Next date for compliance of the award. 05.12.2022
Pronounced in the open court,
on 04th November, 2022
(ATUL KUMAR GARG)
Presiding Officer : MACT (S)
Saket Courts : New Delhi
MACT No. 193/2022;
Thaitanglung Kamei Vs Gurmeet Singh Sodhi and ors.;
FIR No. 633/21; PS Ambedkar Nagar. 04.11.2022 Page No. 17 of 17