Delhi District Court
Aashish Kumar vs Vikash Kumar on 13 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
PO MACT (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No.739/18
FIR No.67/16
PS: Manshoor Pur, Muzzafar Nagar, U. P.
U/s 279/338 IPC
CNR No. DLSE01-003630-2018
Ashish Kumar Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors
1. Aashish Kumar
S/o Sh. Hari Kishan
R/o Village Jhitkari, Sardhana
Distt. Meerut, UP.
.....Petitioner
Versus
1. Vikash Kumar
Sh. Mange Ram
R/o Garhi Naubad, PS Bhora Kala
Distt. Muzzafar Nagar, UP.
...R-1/ driver
2. Rakesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Beer Bal Singh
R/o Garhi Naubad, PS Bhora Kala,
Teh. Budhana, Distt. Muzzafar Nagar, UP.
.....R-2/owner
3. SBI Gen. Insurance Company Ltd.
7B, Ground Floor, Pusa Road,
MACT No.:739/2018 Ashish Kumar Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors Page No. 1 of 36
Opposite to Rachna Cinema
& Metro Pillar No.153, Rajendra Park,
New Delhi.
....R-3/ insurance Company
Date of accident : 07.02.2016
Date of filing of petition : 22.03.2018
Date of Decision : 13.08.2024
AWARD
1. In this case, a claim petition was filed under Section 166
of MV Act by Ashish Kumar (hereinafter referred as claimant)
who suffered injuries in an accident which took place on
07.02.2016 by rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle i.e.
Tractor Trolla bearing Reg. No. UP 12AF 9701 (hereinafter
referred as offending vehicle) which was driven by its driver Sh.
Vikash Kumar (hereinafter referred as R-1), owned by Sh.
Rakesh Kumar (hereinafter referred as R-2) and insured with The
SBI Gen. Ins. Co. (hereinafter referred as R-3). It is claimed that
a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- may be awarded along with interest @
18% per annum.
2. Brief facts as per the claim petition are that on 07.02.2016,
victim Aashish Kumar along with one Mantu Kumar Singh was
going to Haridwar from Meerut by Innova car No. UP14DT 2827
(hereinafter referred as accidental vehicle), being driven by
Mantu Kumar Singh. At about 04.30 hours when they reached
near Mool Chand Hotel, NH58, P. S. Manshoor Pur, U. P.,
suddenly driver of alleged offending vehicle, going ahead
stopped his vehicle on the middle of the road without any
MACT No.:739/2018 Ashish Kumar Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors Page No. 2 of 36
indication/ alarm resultantly, the Innova Car got smashed in the
said tractor trolla leading to death of driver of Innova Car and
injuries to claimant in the present case. The claimant/ victim was
taken to Jagdamba Hospital, Meerut where he was admitted from
07.02.2016 to 12.02.2016 and thereafter, he was taken to Samar
Hospital, Meerut, where he was admitted from 12.02.2016 to
16.02.2016. After getting discharged from Samar Hospital, he
took treatment in Meerut Superficiality Hospital.
3. FIR bearing no. 67/2016 was registered in case in PS
Mansurpur, Distt. Muzzaffar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. Charge Sheet
under relevant provisions of law was filed after conclusion of
investigation.
Reply:
4. Reply to this claim petition was filed by R-1 & 2 jointly
denying any liability to pay compensation to claimant stating that
it was driver of the Innova Car itself who was rash and negligent
on his way as he could not maintain right distance between the
two vehicle.
5. Insurance Company imputed accident to the sole
negligence of driver of accidental vehicle. It is stated that the said
accidental vehicle has been stated to be driven by as per FIR
whereas claim petition contends driving not by Ashish but by
Montu. The negligence and involvement of offending vehicle is
totally denied. It is further stated that this Tribunal has no
territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present claim
petition. It is asserted that the driver of offending vehicle was not
holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident.
It is further stated that trolly was attached with the Tractor which
MACT No.:739/2018 Ashish Kumar Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors Page No. 3 of 36
in effect because the subject of collision an uninsured. It is stated
that the tractor was insured only for the purpose of agricultural
use but at the time of accident, the said tractor was being used for
commercial purpose for carrying/ transporting the goods in the
attached Trolly which constitutes violation of the terms and
conditions of the insurance policy. It is thus prayed that the claim
petition be dismissed.
Issues:
6. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were
framed vide order dated 10.12.2018:
i). Whether the injured Ashish Kumar suffered
injuries in a road traffic accident on 07.02.2016
due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. UP
12AF 9701 (tractor trolly) being driven by R-1,
owned by R-2 and insured with R-3? OPP.
ii). Whether the petitioner is entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from
whom?OPP
iii). Relief.
Evidence:
7. Matter was thereafter listed for recording of evidence. In
the meanwhile, directions were issued to Medical
Superintendent, Pt. Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital to examine/
assess the disability suffered by claimant vide order dated
06.04.2019 in pursuance to application filed by counsel for
claimant. A Disability Certificate dated 12.05.2020 opining 07 %
permanent physical disability in relation to left lower limb was
received by Tribunal.
MACT No.:739/2018 Ashish Kumar Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors Page No. 4 of 36
8. Claimant Sh. Ashish stepped in the witness box as PW-1
and tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit as
Ex.PW1/A. He relied upon following documents:
Original Discharge Summary- Ex.PW1/1
Test Reports-Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/3
NCCT Head Report- Ex.PW1/4
Original Prescription Slips-Ex.PW1/5 to Ex.PW1/9
Medical Treatment Bills amounting to Rs. 2,24,558/--
Ex.PW1/5 to Ex.PW1/39
Certified copy of MLR-Ex.PW1/40
Copy of Voter ID Card-Ex.PW1/41
Copy of PAN Card-Ex.PW1/42
Copy of FIR- Mark A
9. PW-1 was extensively cross examined by counsel for R-1
& 2 as well as counsel for insurance company. Petitioner chose
not to lead further evidence and thus was closed vide order dated
14.12.2021.
10. Matter was then listed for Respondent Evidence. Driver of
offending vehicle namely Vikash Kumar stepped in the witness
box as R1W1 and tendered his examination in chief by way of
affidavit as Ex.R1W1/A. He relied upon copy of his driving
license as Ex.R1W1/1. He was then cross examined by counsel
for Insurance company and counsel for claimant.
11. Further, owner Rakesh Kumar also tendered his evidence
by way of affidavit as Ex.R2W1/A. He relied upon Registration
Certificate of offending vehicle and copy of Insurance Policy as
MACT No.:739/2018 Ashish Kumar Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors Page No. 5 of 36
Ex.R2W1/1 and Ex.R2W1/2. He was also cross examined in
detail by counsel for insurance company as well as counsel for
claimant.
12. Insurance Company also examined its Legal Executive Sh.
Rahul Kumar Sharma, who tendered his examination in chief by
way of affidavit Ex.R3W1/A. He relied upon documents
Ex.R3W1/1 to Ex.R3W1/4 including Notice under Order XII
Rule 8 CPC, copy of insurance policy etc. He was then cross
examined by counsel for R-1 & 2. RE was then closed on
23.09.2022.
Final Arguments:
13. Matter was then listed for final arguments. Final
Arguments was addressed on behalf of Ld. Counsel for claimant,
Ld. Counsel for R-1 & 2 as well as Ld. Counsel for insurance
company.
14. Counsel for claimant argued that the vehicle was stationed
in the middle of the road in callous and irresponsible manner
which led to the collision. He argued that the injured had to
undergo prolonged treatment which severely effected his physical
and mental capacity, in turn effecting his earning capabilities.
Counsel for R-1 & R-2 argued that the offending vehicle was
validly insured and it was stationed with proper reflectors. He
attributed the entire fault on driver on accidental vehicle who
rammed the accidental vehicle on the stationary offending
vehicle. Counsel for Insurance Company denied territorial
jurisdiction of this Tribunal to try the petition, and further stated
that it was fault of driver of accidental vehicle.
MACT No.:739/2018 Ashish Kumar Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors Page No. 6 of 36
Territorial Jurisdiction:
15. We shall first deal with contention raised by counsel for
Insurance Company qua territorial jurisdiction.
16. Territorial Jurisdiction governed by Section 166(2) of MV
Act. As per which the application under section 166(1) can be
filed at the option of the claimant, to the claim Tribunal having
jurisdiction over the area in which:
(i). the accident occurred,
(ii). within whose jurisdiction the claimant/petitioner
resides,
(iii) within whose jurisdiction the claimant/petitioner
carries on his business, or
(iv) within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the
defendant resides.
17. It is important to note that Section 21 CPC, which is
referred and relied time and again by Hon'ble Supreme Court
including in the case of Mantoo Sarkar vs. Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. & Ors. (2009 ACJ 564) and Malati Sardar vs National
Insurance Company Ltd. Decided on 5 January, 2016 by Hon'ble
SC, in Civil Appeal No10/2016, arising out of SLP (Civil)
No.27243 Of 2015), relates to Ld. appellant and revisionist court
and not to trial court. Section 21 CPC bars taking objection
relating to territorial jurisdiction for the first time in the appellant
court, unless the same was taken at the earliest possible
opportunity and further that there is a consequent failure of
justice.
18. The issue was deliberated in the case of Kaila Devi Vs.
Ankita and another (MAC. App. 1017/2017 in the year 2017
while referring and relying on Malati Sardar( supra) with
MACT No.:739/2018 Ashish Kumar Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors Page No. 7 of 36
following observations:
"3.The respondent raised the objection of territorial
jurisdiction on the ground that the accident took place at
Modi Nagar, the claimants reside at Modi Nagar and the
insurance policy was issued from Gurgaon Office.
4. the claims Tribunal held that the respondents' office at
Delhi is of no consequence as the policy was issued from
the Gurgaon office.
5. In Malati Sardar Vs. National Insurance Company
Limited (2016) 3 SCC 43, the Supreme Court held that the
claim petition can be instituted where the insurance
company has their office. The relevant portion of the
findings of the Supreme Court in para no.14 are
reproduced here under: -
"14. The provision in question, in the present case, is a
benevolent provisions for the victims of accidents of
negligent driving. The provision for territorial jurisdiction
has to be interpreted consistent with the object of
facilitating has to be interpreted consistent with the object
of facilitating remedies for the victims of accidents. Hyper
technical approach in such matters can hardly be
appreciated. There is no bar to a claim petition being filed
at a place where the insurance company which is the main
contesting parties in such cases, has its business. In such
cases, there is no prejudice to any party. There is no failure
of justice."
19. In view thereof as Insurance Company has one of its
branch office within jurisdiction of this Court which has not been
denied by Insurance Company presumably carrying its business
from that office as there is nothing on record to draw contrary
conclusion, it is held that this court has territorial jurisdiction to
adjudicate upon this claim for compensation.
Findings qua framed issues:
20. On the basis of material on record, evidence adduced and
MACT No.:739/2018 Ashish Kumar Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors Page No. 8 of 36
arguments addressed, issue wise findings are as under :
Issue No.1
i). Whether the injured Ashish Kumar suffered injuries in a
road traffic accident on 07.02.2016 due to rash and
negligent driving of vehicle no. UP 12AF 9701 (tractor
trolly) being driven by R-1, owned by R-2 and insured
with R-3? OPP.
21. What is required to be ascertained is whether rash and
negligent driving of offending vehicle resulted in an accident
which caused injuries to the claimant.
22. It has been held in catena of cases that negligence has to be
decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and
a holistic view is to be taken. It has been further held that the
proceedings under the Motor Vehicle Act are not akin to the
proceedings in a Civil Suit and hence, strict rules of evidence are
not applicable (support drawn from the case of Bimla Devi & Ors
vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & ors [(2009) 13 SC
530,[ in Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India
Assurance Company Limited, [2001 ACJ 421 SC[, in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pushpa Rana cited as [2009 ACJ 287 Del].
23. PW-1/ Ashish is the injured himself who deposed that he
was travelling in Innova, being driven by Sh Mantu Kumar Singh
(died in the same accident) slowly, vigilantly and on the correct
side of the road. He testified that the offending vehicle, which
was being driven in a rash and negligent manner , suddenly
stopped the vehicle in the middle of the road without blowing
MACT No.:739/2018 Ashish Kumar Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors Page No. 9 of 36
any horn and totally neglecting the traffic rules, without any
indicator because of which their car smashed into the tractor-
trolly. He was extensively cross examined by counsel for R-1 & 2
wherein he clarified that accidental vehicle was being run in the
middle of the road and due to fog, they could not spot the tractor
-trolly having suddenly applied brake. Counsel had put FIR to the
notice of PW-1 injured wherein he has been mentioned to be the
driver of Innova Car. The accident happened at 04.30 am, while
FIR was registered at 09.15 AM upon the statement of brother in
law of Mantu Singh who died in the same accident. Considering
the nature and magnitude of accident involving a fatal casualty
and serious injuries to other occupants of the car, giving
preliminary information to the police by an external person who
was a relative and as such had no first hand information about the
factual matrix of the accident including as to who was driving the
car at the relevant time of the accident, any adverse inference in
respect of details mentioned as known or as presumed by the
complainant is not called for. Therefore, claimant cannot be
faulted for any incorrect factual detail mentioned in the FIR,
written at a chaotic time after the accident.
24. R-1 also appeared in the witness box and deposed that the
accidental vehicle actually had hit the stationary offending
vehicle from the rear side and therefore, driver of the accidental
vehicle was responsible for the accident as it was the duty of the
said driver to maintain distance between the two vehicles and
thus vehicle plying ahead cannot be held responsible for the
accident. Similar worded affidavit was adduced in evidence by
owner of the alleged offending vehicle. R1W1 stated in cross
examination that he had put reflectors behind the tractor trolly
MACT No.:739/2018 Ashish Kumar Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors Page No. 10 of 36
when it was stationed on one side of the road, admitting that
there was no parking sign. During cross examination by counsel
for insurance company, he admitted that the offending vehicle
was stationed at proper place with reflectors at the time of
accident. He also admitted that the driver of the accidental
vehicle hit the trolly from behind at a very high speed in a rash
and negligent manner, thereby caused the accident. Site plan has
been filed as part of charge sheet that both the vehicles were
driven in the same direction. Further that the offending vehicle
was suddenly stopped in the middle of the road without any
indicator any without blowing any horn because of which
accident vehicle could not spot it and the accident happened. PW-
1 specified in he cross examination that Innova car was being
driven at an average speed of 40-45 kmph. Nothing has been
suggested by counsel for R-1 that the said affirmation is
incorrect. There is no specific denial by R-1 that his vehicle was
not in movement at all. However, he has asserted and rather
corroborated the assertion of the claimant that the offending
vehicle was stationary when hit by the accidental vehicle. In WS
filed by R-1 & 2 or even in evidence adduced by R-1 & 2, there
is no mention of reason as to why the vehicle was stationed.
Mechanical Inspection Report, filed with charge sheet also does
not mention of any light, indicator or reflector, noted as affixed
on the trolly. There is no evidence to show that the driver of the
offending vehicle was conscious of the danger, it entailed and
made any effort to avert any damage to itself and to him and his
vehicle as well as to any one else plying on the road. There is
nothing to show that he made any effort to ensure that his vehicle
is spotted by the other vehicle possibly plying on the road so as
MACT No.:739/2018 Ashish Kumar Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors Page No. 11 of 36
to avert any unfortunate incident. He has not denied existence of
foggy conditions as affirmed by PW-1 which made the entire
situation even dangerous and casted / obligation upon R-1 to take
extra precautionary measures to help himself and others. Further,
the stoppage of vehicle was in the primary knowledge of R-1 and
therefore, it cannot be reasonably expected of any other vehicle
plying on the road to anticipate another vehicle arbitrarorily
stationed in the middle of the road that too on a highway. Site
plan shows that the spot of the accident is in the middle of the
road and therefore, it cannot be said that the accident vehicle was
stationed on one side of the road. R-1 acted as totally oblivious of
danger projected in the situation involving his vehicle at the
relevant time and failed to discharge the basic duty of care
expected of any reasonable being in the circumstance at hand.
RW1 has insisted upon negligence on the part of driver of the
accidental vehicle in causing the accident as it failed to maintain
a reasonable distance from the vehicle plying ahead. This
affirmation is self contradictory to the assertion that the
accidental vehicle had a hit in a stationary vehicle ahead. It is not
the case of R-1 that he was driving slowly due to fog while the
vehicle plying behind it was driven at a high speed and rammed
into offending vehicle. The explanation attempted by R-1 is thus
ill founded and and hence rejected. The assertion made by the
respondents to make out a case for sole or contributory
negligence on the part of driver of the accidental vehicle is
without any basis and thus cannot be accepted.
25. FIR in this case was promptly registered. There is no
dispute with respect to the identification of the offending vehicle
and its driver. The factual matrix about the mode and manner of
MACT No.:739/2018 Ashish Kumar Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors Page No. 12 of 36
the accident have been discussed in the proceeding paragraph. R-
1 was charge sheeted for rash and negligent driving on the public
way. On the basis of discussion made above, it is held that the
occurrence of accident is solely attributed in utter negligence and
recklessness on the part of R-1 towards the reasonably
anticipated consequences that his action or inaction would have
entailed and therefore, failed in its duty to exercise care and
caution while driving a motor vehicle on a public way.
26. It is thus evident from the discussions made above that
accident happened on account of rash and negligent driving by
driver of the offending vehicle. Issue in hand is accordingly
decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2
"Whether the injured is entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?
OPP"
27. Sec. 168 MV Act enjoins the Claim Tribunals to hold an
enquiry into the claim to make an effort determining the amount
of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable.
Same is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
"(1) Award of the Claims Tribunal.--On receipt of an
application for compensation made under section 166,
the Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the
application to the insurer and after giving the parties
(including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard,
hold an inquiry into the claim or, as the case may be,
each of the claims and, subject to the provisions of
section 162 may make an award determining the
amount of compensation which appears to it to be just
and specifying the person or persons to whom
MACT No.:739/2018 Ashish Kumar Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors Page No. 13 of 36
compensation shall be paid and in making the award
the Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which
shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the
vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of
them, as the case may be: Provided that where such
application makes a claim for compensation under
section 140 in respect of the death or permanent
disablement of any person, such claim and any other
claim (whether made in such application or otherwise)
for compensation in respect of such death or
permanent disablement shall be disposed of in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter X.
(2) The Claims Tribunal shall arrange to deliver copies
of the award to the parties concerned expeditiously and
in any case within a period of fifteen days from the
date of the award.
(3) When an award is made under this section, the
person who is required to pay any amount in terms of
such award shall, within thirty days of the date of
announcing the award by the Claims Tribunal, deposit
the entire amount awarded in such manner as the
Claims Tribunal may direct."
28. Before putting in frame the position of law, it is noted that
the process of determining the compensation by the court is
essentially a very difficult task and can never be an exact science.
Perfect compensation is hardly possible, more so in claims of
injury and disability. (As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Sidram Vs. The Divisional Manager United
India Insurance Company Ltd, SLP (Civil) No. 19277 of 2019.
29. The basic principle in assessing motor vehicle
compensation claims, is to place the victim in as near a position
as she or he was in before the accident, with other compensatory
directions for loss of amenities and other payments. These
general principles have been stated and reiterated in several
MACT No.:739/2018 Ashish Kumar Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors Page No. 14 of 36
decisions. [Support drawn from Govind Yadav v. New India
Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683.]
30. This Tribunal has been tasked with determination of just
compensation. The observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty and
Another, (2003) 7 SCC 197, needs mention here (para 15):
"Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the
compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a
bonanza; not a source of profit but the same should
not be a pittance. The courts and tribunals have a
duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the
amount of compensation, which should be just. What
would be "just" compensation is a vexed question.
There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases
for measuring the value of human life or a limb.
Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise
mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the
particular facts and circumstances, and attending
peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or
mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be
considered in the background of "just" compensation
which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of
the expression "which appears to it to be just", a wide
discretion is vested in the Tribunal, the determination
has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach
and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and
arbitrariness.. ..."
31. Delineating the damages as pecuniary and non pecuniary,
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case of R. D. Hattangadi Vs.
Pest Control (India) Pvt Ltd, 1995 AIR 755, made following
observations:
"9....while fixing an amount of compensation
payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have
MACT No.:739/2018 Ashish Kumar Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors Page No. 15 of 36
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 far 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; (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."
32. Certain principles for delineating just compensation were
enumerated in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr.,
(2011) 1 SCC 343, by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
Following observations are relevant in the context:
"40.General principles relating to compensation in injury
cases
5. 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 far as money
can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner.
The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the
MACT No.:739/2018 Ashish Kumar Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors Page No. 16 of 36
damages objectively and exclude from consideration
any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture
with reference to the nature of disability and its
consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to
be compensated for the physical injury, but also for
the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury.
This means that he is to be compensated for his
inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those
normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but
for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as
he used to earn or could have earned. [See C.K.
Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair [(1969) 3
SCC 64 : AIR 1970 SC 376] , R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest
Control (India) (P) Ltd. [(1995) 1 SCC 551 : 1995
SCC (Cri) 250] and Baker v. Willoughby [1970 AC
467 : (1970) 2 WLR 50 : (1969) 3 All ER 1528 (HL)]
.]
6. 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, 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).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will
be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It
MACT No.:739/2018 Ashish Kumar Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors Page No. 17 of 36
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.
7. Assessment of pecuniary damages under Item (i) and
under Item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they
involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily
ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head
of future medical expenses--Item (iii)--depends upon
specific medical evidence regarding need for further
treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary
damages--Items (iv), (v) and (vi)--involves
determination of lump sum amounts with reference to
circumstances such as age, nature of
injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant
and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant.
Decisions of this Court and the High Courts contain
necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if
necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the
assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of
permanent disability--Item (ii)(a). We are concerned
with that assessment in this case.
Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent
disability
8. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to
perform an activity in the manner considered normal for
a human being. Permanent disability refers to the
residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the
body, found existing at the end of the period of
treatment and recuperation, after achieving the
maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is
likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured.
Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of
use of some part of the body on account of the injury,
which will cease to exist at the end of the period of
treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be
either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers
MACT No.:739/2018 Ashish Kumar Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors Page No. 18 of 36
to a person's inability to perform all the duties and
bodily functions that he could perform before the
accident, though he is able to perform some of them and
is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total
permanent disability refers to a person's inability to
perform any avocation or employment related activities
as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities
that may arise from motor accident injuries, are of a
much wider range when compared to the physical
disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights
and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ("the Disabilities Act",
for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in
Section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of
injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be
permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming
compensation.
9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed
by the doctors with reference to the whole body, or
more often than not, with reference to a particular limb.
When a disability certificate states that the injured has
suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the
left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent
disability with reference to the whole body. The extent
of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in
terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb,
obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of
disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent
disability of the right hand and 80% permanent
disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of
permanent disability with reference to the whole body is
140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the
body have suffered different percentages of disabilities,
the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the
permanent disability with reference to the whole body
cannot obviously exceed 100%.
10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as
a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation
under the head of loss of future earnings would depend
upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability
on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not
mechanically apply the percentage of permanent
disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of
MACT No.:739/2018 Ashish Kumar Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors Page No. 19 of 36
earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of
economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning
capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be
different from the percentage of permanent disability.
Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a
particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability
would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity,
and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45%
as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45%
loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases,
equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning
capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent
disability will result in award of either too low or too
high a compensation.
11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the
effect of the permanent disability on the earning
capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of
earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the
income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to
arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the
standard multiplier method used to determine loss of
dependency). We may however note that in some cases,
on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the
Tribunal may find that the percentage of loss of earning
capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is
approximately the same as the percentage of permanent
disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will
adopt the said percentage for determination of
compensation. (See for example, the decisions of this
Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 254 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri)
1258 : (2010) 10 Scale 298] and Yadava Kumar v.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 341 :
(2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1285 : (2010) 8 Scale 567] )
12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether
there is any permanent disability and, if so, the extent of
such permanent disability. This means that the Tribunal
should consider and decide with reference to the
evidence:
(i) whether the disablement is permanent or
temporary;
(ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is
MACT No.:739/2018 Ashish Kumar Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors Page No. 20 of 36
permanent total disablement or permanent partial
disablement;
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with
reference to any specific limb, then the effect of
such disablement of the limb on the functioning of
the entire body, that is, the permanent disability
suffered by the person.
If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent
disability then there is no question of proceeding
further and determining the loss of future earning
capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is
permanent disability then it will proceed to
ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains
the actual extent of permanent disability of the
claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to
determine whether such permanent disability has
affected or will affect his earning capacity.
13. 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 disability (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.
.
.
.
.
MACT No.:739/2018 Ashish Kumar Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors Page No. 21 of 36
19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above:
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as the percentage of permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard to the extent of permanent disability.
The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors."
33. The above-said principles have been placed reliance upon in a recent judgment reported as Sidram Vs. The Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd and Anr ., arising out of SLP (Civil) no. 19277 of 2018 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as decided on 16.11.2022.
34. It is settled proposition of law as held in catena of judgments that "just compensation" should include all elements that would go to place the victim in as near a position as she or MACT No.:739/2018 Ashish Kumar Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors Page No. 22 of 36 he was in, before the occurrence of the accident. Whilst no amount of money or other material compensation can erase the trauma, pain and suffering that a victim undergoes after a serious accident, (or replace the loss of a loved one), monetary compensation is the manner known to law, whereby society assures some measure of restitution to those who survive, and the victims who have to face their lives.
35. In the present case, PW1 deposed that at the time of accident, he was 23 years old and working as Motor Mechanic with M/s Sun Light Tours and Travels from where he was drawing salary of Rs. 20,000/- per month. However, no document has been filed by the claimant to prove his income or avocation. Further he also admitted that he has not filed any document regarding his claim that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month doing a job of Motor Mechanic. Any educational documents have not been filed by claimant. He was neither filed any appointment letter or any salary certificate pertaining to employment nor has he examined his employer. The Voter ID card Ex.PW1/41 mentioned his address of Uttar Pradesh and date of birth as 1995. Therefore, his income is assessed as per minimum wages for unskilled workman applicable in State of Uttar Pradesh at the time of accident which was Rs. 7,107/-.
36. Further medical documents suggest that victim had suffered grievous injuries in the accident which later led to permanent disability in relation to his left upper limb. Medical documents further reveal that he firstly took his treatment in Jagdamba Hospital where his MLR was prepared. Later, he was admitted in Samar Hospital for the period 12.02.2016 to MACT No.:739/2018 Ashish Kumar Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors Page No. 23 of 36 16.02.2016. He further took treatment in Meerut Superspeciality Clinic. There are numerous medical bills filed on record which suggest that his treatment continued for several months. After going through the medical bills and documents on record, it is assumed that victim has suffered at least 6 months in regaining his earning capacity to resume work. Therefore, loss of income is taken for 6 months.
37. It is further deposed by PW-1/injured that he is claiming compensation also for future prospect/ functional disability. It is submitted that as per Medical Disability Certificate, petitioner received 7% disability in relation to left upper limb.
38. Regarding compensation towards loss of future income, applying the law laid down in Raj Kumar (supra), it cannot be stated that the partial permanent disability is bound to have some adverse effect upon delivery of services as motor mechanic as it would impede his unhindered mobility.
39. Thus, having regard to nature of permanent disability, nature of job which he claims, he was doing at the time of accident, and nature of work which he can still do, his functional disability is taken/ assessed to be 4%.
40. As per Voter ID Card of injured Ex.PW2/3, his year of birth of given 1995 and thus, he was above 21 years of age at the time of accident therefore, applicable multiplier would be 18. (Reference drawn from the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. SLP (C) no. 8648 of 2007, decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India).
41. Having regard to the law as also discussed above regarding MACT No.:739/2018 Ashish Kumar Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors Page No. 24 of 36 compensation, in the present case award amount is calculated as under:
Sl. no. Pecuniary loss : - Quantum 1. (i) Expenditure on treatment : Claimant Rs. 2,24,558/-
deposed that he has incurred Rs. 8 lakhs towards his medical treatment. However, he has filed Medical Bills worth Rs. 2,24,558/- Ex.PW1/10 to Ex.PW1/39.
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance : No Rs. 20,000/- prescription filed by the claimant towards expenditure for conveyance.
However, considering the nature of injuries compensation towards conveyance is granted by guess work.
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : There Rs.20,000/- is no prescription for special diet.
The nature of injuries are grievous and petitioner suffered 7% permanent physical impairment in relation to his right upper limb.
By guess work, compensation can be awarded for special diet.
(iv) Cost of nursing / attendant : Rs.20,000/- The nature of injuries are grievous and petitioner suffered 7% permanent physical impairment in relation to his right upper limb.
Even in the absence of documentary proof, compensation for attendant's charges is to be given even if services were rendered by family members.
(v) Loss of income : As discussed Rs.42,642/- above:
(vi) Cost of artificial limbs (if NA
applicable) :
MACT No.:739/2018 Ashish Kumar Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors Page No. 25 of 36
(vii) Any other loss / expenditure : NA
2. Non-Pecuniary Loss :
(I) Compensation of mental and Rs.25,000/-
physical shock : The nature of injuries are grievous and petitioner suffered 7% permanent physical impairment in relation to his right upper limb, he would have undergone great mental and physical shock.
(ii) Pain and suffering : Compensation Rs. 25,000/- for pain and suffering is to be awarded keeping in mind the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner.
(iii) Loss of amenities of life : The Rs.10,000/- nature of injuries are grievous and petitioner suffered 7% permanent physical impairment in relation to his right upper limb.
(iv) Disfiguration : Nil.
(v) Loss of marriage prospects : Nil
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity (I) Percentage of disability assessed and The nature of nature of disability as permanent or injuries are temporary grievous and petitioner suffered 7% permanent physical impairment in relation to his right upper limb.
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Already granted expectation of life span on account of disability : The nature of injuries are grievous and petitioner suffered 7% permanent physical impairment in relation to his right upper limb.
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning 4% capacity in relation to disability: As MACT No.:739/2018 Ashish Kumar Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors Page No. 26 of 36 already discuss above.
(iv) Loss of future Income: The 4 % of (7,107 X functional disability is taken as 4%. 12 X 18)) =Rs. 61,404/-
Injured was above 21 years old at the time of accident, hence multiplier of 18 is applicable.
(v) Future medical expenses Nil
Total Compensation Rs 4,48,604/-
Deduction, if any, Nil
Total Compensation after deduction Rs 4,48,604/-
Interest As directed
below
42. It is further ordered that the claimant shall be entitled to simple interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR till actual realization of Award amount/compensation.
43. It may be noted that in the judgment of Ram Charan & Ors. Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., MAC Appeal no. 433/2013, decided on 18.10.2022 it was noted regarding rate of interest:
"25 to evaluate the submission made by counsel for the applicants, it is imperative to examine the guiding principles for the grant of interest. In Abati Bezbaruah Vs. Geological Survey of India, (2003) 3 SCC 148, the following was held while interpreting section 171 of the MV Act, 1988:-
Three decisions were cited before us by Mr. A. P. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, in support of his contentions. No ratio has been laid down in any of the decisions in regard to the rate of interest and the rate of interest was awarded on the amount of compensation as a matter of judicial discretion. The rate of interest MACT No.:739/2018 Ashish Kumar Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors Page No. 27 of 36 must be just and reasonable depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and taking all relevant factors including inflation, change of economy, policy being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from time to time, how long the case is pending, permanent injuries suffered by the victim, enormity of suffering, loss of future income, loss of enjoyment of life etc. into consideration. No rate of interest is fixed under Section 171 of the MV Act 1988. Varying rates of interest are being awarded by Tribunals, High Courts and the Supreme Court. Interest can be granted even if a claimant does not specifically plead for the same as it is consequential in the eye of the law. Interest is compensation for forbearance or detention of money and that interest being awarded to a party only for being kept out of the money which ought to have been paid to him. No principle could be deduced nor can any rate of interest be fixed to have a general application in motor accident provision under Section 171 giving discretion to the Tribunal in such matter. In other matters, awarding of interest depends upon the statutory provisions mercantile usage and doctrine of equity. Neither Sec. 34 CPC nor Sec. 4-A(3) of Workmen's Compensation Act are applicable in the matter of fixing are of interest in a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. The courts have awarded the interest at different rates depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, in my opinion, there cannot be any hard and fast rule in awarding interest and the award of interest is solely on the discretion of the Tribunal of the High Court as indicated above."
44. Having regard to the prevailing rate of interest and the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, including in the MACT No.:739/2018 Ashish Kumar Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors Page No. 28 of 36 case of Erudhaya Priya vs State Express Transport decided on 27 July, 2020, Civil Appeal Nos. 2811-2812 OF 2020 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.8495-8496 of 2018], which is three Judges Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, such interest @ 9% per annum is deemed fit and accordingly granted in the present case.
LIABILITY
45. There are three respondents in this matter having adjudicated upon the accident as a result of negligence attributed to R-1 in primary control and supervision of the vehicle at the time of accident, having been so authorised by R-2, the owner of the vehicle, duly insured with the Insurance company /R-3. The vehicle in this matter is a tractor with a trolly attached to it. The accident happened with the stationary offending vehicle from the back and therefore, R-3 has taken a defence that the trolly attached with the tractor was not insured as any premium was not paid for the trolly/ trailer. Further, that the tractor was insured only for the purpose of agricultural use which was rather being used as a commercial vehicle as certain goods were being carried in the said vehicle and therefore, the insured acted in breach of terms and conditions of the policy which is why insurance company is not liable to indemnify R-2 insured or to pay any compensation to the petitioners. R-3 has examined its senior legal executive Sh. Rahul Kumar Sharma in the witness box who proved the insurance policy as Ex.R3W1/3 affirming the contentions as mentioned above. He further deposed in his evidentiary affidavit Ex.R3W1/A that R-3 has sent a notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC to R-2 Rakesh Kumar at his last known MACT No.:739/2018 Ashish Kumar Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors Page No. 29 of 36 address for production of the original insurance policy along with the driving license of R-1 at the time of alleged accident, postal receipts of which have been placed on record as Ex.R3W1/1 and Ex.R3W1/2. During cross examination, he admitted that offending vehicle was duly insured with R-3 at the time of accident. He however declined the suggestion that the vehicle insured for the agricultural purposes is inclusive of a trolly and therefore, policy covers the trolly in addition to the tractor.
46. The factual premise is involvement of a tractor with trolly attached to it. To understand the spectrum of the issue, it is imperative to note as to what a tractor and a trailer connotes as per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Section 2 (44) of MV Acts defines tractor as:-
A motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion); but excludes a road-roller;
Section 2 (46) of MV Acts defines trailer as:-
Any vehicle other than a semi-trailer and a side car, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle.
47. To understand the definition of trailer, it is important to assess what a semi trailer means which has been defined in Section 2 (39) of MV Act which is reproduced as under:
Section 2 (46) of MV Acts defines semi trailer as:-
A vehicle not mechanically propelled (other than a trailer), which is intended to be connected to a motor vehicle and which is so constructed that a portion of it is super imposed on and a part of whose weight is borne by that motor vehicle.
MACT No.:739/2018 Ashish Kumar Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors Page No. 30 of 36
48. The exact configuration of trolly/ trailer attached with the tractor as offending vehicle is not known so as to classify it strictly as a trailer or a semi trailer, however, it is clear that it was attached / connected with the tractor as a motor vehicle and also drawn by it. Given as it may be, the definition of tractor clarifies that it is not constructed to carry any load despite a heavy vehicle by its make. The purpose for which the tractor was being put to use at the time of accident, therefore, attain significance in the context. It is deposed by R1W1 that trolly/ trailer was carrying sugarcane waste of 45 to 50 quintal for agricultural purpose. He declined the suggestion that the tractor was engaged with Khatauli Mills for commercial activities for carrying the sugar waste / malli admitting however, that the trolly was filled with malli. He also declined the suggestion that he was carrying the same for his personal use and not for agricultural use. There is no contrary evidence to suggest that the sugarcane waste/ Malli, having been carried by the trolly was used not for agricultural purposes but for commercial activities. At this stage, it is imperative to understand how a goods carriage has been defined under Section 2 (14) MV Act which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
Section 2 (14) MV Act defines goods carriage as:-
Any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods.
49. A plain reading of this definition clarifies that it connotes a motor vehicle adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods. As discussed above, a tractor by itself is not constructed to carry any MACT No.:739/2018 Ashish Kumar Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors Page No. 31 of 36 load and therefore, trolly/ trailer is attached to it for the purpose of carrying goods. At this stage, since the affirmation on the part of R-1 & 2 is about use of the tractor for agricultural purposes that it is necessary to examine the definition of Agricultural Tractors and Agricultural Trailers as defined in the amended Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 as given in Rule 2 (b) & (c) reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
"2(b) Agricultural tractor means any mechanically propelled 4 wheel vehicle designed to work with suitable implements for various field operation and / or trailers to transport agricultural materials. Agricultural tractor is non-transport vehicle"
"2(c) Agricultural trailer means a trailer generally left uncovered with single/double axle construction which is coupled to an Agricultural Tractor by means of two hooks and predominantly used for transporting agricultural materials."
50. Above referred rules clearly imply that agricultural trailer attached to an agricultural tractor may be put to use for transportation of agricultural materials. In the case at hand, there is no contrary evidence to prove that the trailer attached to tractor was being used for transporting any material for commercial usage. RW1 & RW2 have categorically specified about the agricultural material being transported for personal / agricultural use. So the tractor and trailer at hand were being used for the purpose of performance of agricultural operations and would be deemed to be agricultural tractor and agricultural trailer. It is thus evident that the offending vehicle is a non transport vehicle being used for agricultural purpose, therefore the contention of the MACT No.:739/2018 Ashish Kumar Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors Page No. 32 of 36 insurance company about tractor trolly being put to commercial usage is rejected. That also implies that the trolly attached with the offending tractor would have required a separate insurance and registration, if it was intended to be put to use for commercial purpose whereas it is evident that the trolly did not have any separate registration number. Support can be drawn from Rule 50 (6) of Central Motor Vehicles Rule which provides that the registration mark of the drawing agricultural tractor may not be exhibited on the agricultural trailer. This means that the agricultural trailer which has no independent existence and is totally dependent upon the tractor to propel it, is considered part of the tractor itself. Having said that, it is evident that the tractor and trolly attached with it being used for agricultural purpose cannot be called to be transport vehicle or even goods carriage and therefore do not require any separate registration number or insurance policy, which would have been otherwise, had there been any commercial use. (Reliance placed upon judgment titled as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Brij Mohan & Ors Appeal (Civil) 2532 of 2007 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as Liyakat Ali Vs. Smt. Chunni Devi First Appeal from Order no.608 of 2009 of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court).
51. In view of the above mentioned above, it is held that the contention raised by the insurance company in support of prayer of exoneration from its liability is rejected. Insurance Company is held liable to furnish compensation for accident caused by use of offending vehicle.
52. It would be worthwhile to mention at this stage, that this issue was adjudicated by my Ld. Predecessor in connected fatal case pertaining to the same accident which was challenged before MACT No.:739/2018 Ashish Kumar Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors Page No. 33 of 36 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court as MAC App. 81 of 2021 & CM Appl. 5490 of 2021 and was upheld.
53. Therefore, such principal award amount/compensation will be payable by the insurance company of offending vehicle with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of petition till actual realization. (If there is any order regarding excluding of interest for specific period same be complied at the time of calculation of award amount).
54. 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 No. 00000042706870765, IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir along with calculation of interest and to the Counsel for the petitioner. Insurance company shall also furnish TDS certificate, if any to the petitioner.
Mode of Disbursement/ Release of Award Amount Whole of the award amount is directed to be released in favour of claimant in his bank account near his place of residence along with interest.
FORM -VI-B SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1 Date of accident 07.02.2016 2 Name of injured Ashish Kumar MACT No.:739/2018 Ashish Kumar Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors Page No. 34 of 36 3 Age of the injured Above 21 years 4 Occupation of the Not proved injured 5 Income of the injured Minimum wages for unskilled workman applicable at the time of accident in Uttar Pradesh.
6 Nature injury Grievous injuries which led to 07 % permanent physical disability in relation to left lower limb.
7 Medical treatment taken As per record.
by the injured:
8 Period of As per record.
Hospitalization 9 Whether any permanent 07 % permanent physical disability?
disability in relation to left lower limb.
55. Copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. The copy of award be also sent to the DLSA and Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate.
56. Put up on 13.09.2024 for compliance.
Announced in the open court on 13.08.2024 MACT No.:739/2018 Ashish Kumar Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors Page No. 35 of 36 Shelly Arora PO (MACT)-02, SE/Saket/Delhi 13.08.2024 Digitally signed by SHELLY SHELLY ARORA ARORA Date:
2024.08.13 17:35:41 +0530 MACT No.:739/2018 Ashish Kumar Vs. Vikash Kumar & Ors Page No. 36 of 36