Delhi District Court
Shashibala (I)(Fir376/19/Kashmere ... vs Pankaj Pandey (Reliance Gen. Ins) on 13 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF DR. RUCHI AGGARWAL ASRANI
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010068012020
MACT No. : 484/2020
FIR No. : 376/2019
PS : Kashmere Gate
u/s : 279/338 IPC
Smt. Shashi Bala,
D/o. Sh. Ram Singh,
R/o. R-O-15/317, Kalyanpuri, Delhi. ......Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Pankaj Pandey (driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle)
S/o Sh. Umesh Chand,
R/o H.No.DF-197, Ward No.6, Arya UP Nagar,
Narwana Jind Haryana.
2. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (insurer)
A-12, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,
Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044. ......Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 15.10.2020
Judgment reserved on : 27.07.2024
Date of Award : 13.08.2024
AWAR D
The Detailed Accident Report (DAR) filed on 15.10.2020
was registered as a Motor Accident Claim petition. The DAR revealed
that a Road Traffic Accident took place on 05.12.2019 at about
MACT No. 484/2020 Shashi Bala Vs. Pankaj Pandey and anr. Page 1 of 38
10:00AM at Nityanand Marg Cut, Lothian Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi
wherein the petitioner, Shashi Bala, had sustained grievous injuries. The
accident took place with a vehicle bearing registration No. HR-32G-
4712 driven and owned by respondent no.1, Pankaj Pandey and insured
with respondent no. 2, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that the information of an accident was received at P.S. Kashmere Gate vide DD No.14A. ASI went to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital where he collected the MLC bearing no. 3280/19 of the injured Shashibala. There he got to know that the injured has left for some other hospital. Thereafter, ASI spoke to the injured and he recorded the statement of the injured at her home. Injured stated that on 05.12.2019 at about 9:00 AM, she was going to her office by her Scooty and when she reached near Metro Station Gate no. 6, Lothian Road Cut, Delhi, suddenly a motorcycle hit her Scooty from the back side. Due to the said hit, she fell down on the road. Driver of the offending vehicle took her to Aruna Asaf Ali hospital and after admitting the injured to the hospital, he left from there.
3. On the basis of the MLC of the injured, case was registered under section 279/337 IPC and investigation was initiated. The offending vehicle and scooty of the injured were seized by the IO and sent to Malkhana. Notice under Section 133 M.V. Act was issued to the registered owner. The DL and RC of the offending vehicle were taken into the custody of the IO. The mechanical inspection of the offending MACT No. 484/2020 Shashi Bala Vs. Pankaj Pandey and anr. Page 2 of 38 vehicle was got conducted. The documents pertaining to the offending vehicle were found to be correct after verification from the concerned authority. Thereafter, driver of the offending vehicle was arrested. Since the offence was bailable, he was released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds. On completion of investigation, chargesheet under section 279/338 IPC was filed against the driver Pankaj Pandey and DAR was filed before this Tribunal on 15.10.2020.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
4. Respondent no.1 has filed his written statement on 08.04.2021. Respondent no. 2 insurance company has also filed its reply on 22.01.2021.
ISSUES FRAMED
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 16.12.2021, this Tribunal had framed the issues, however, there was a typographical error in the said issues. The amended issues were framed vide order dated 27.07.2024 which are as follows:
i. Whether the injured Shashi Bala suffered grievous injuries in an accident that took place on 05.12.2019 at about 10:00 Hrs. at Nityanand Marg cut Lothian Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi involving vehicle bearing registration No. HR-32G-4712 driven rashly and negligently as well as owned by respondent no. 1 Pankaj Pandey and insured with respondent no. 2 Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.?
OPP.
MACT No. 484/2020 Shashi Bala Vs. Pankaj Pandey and anr. Page 3 of 38
ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what
amount and from whom? OPP
iii. Relief.
EVIDENCE
6. To prove its case, the petitioner examined herself as PW-1.
The petitioner closed her evidence. Respondent no. 1 examined himself as R1W1. Respondent no. 2 insurance company has examined Mr. Amit Kumar as RW2.
7. The Petitioner filed the Form XIV. Financial statement of the petitioner has been recorded. Final arguments were heard on behalf of the parties.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
8. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Ld. Counsels for the respondents and carefully perused the record. My findings are as under:-
Anlaysis:
9. Before delving into the facts of the current case to decide the aforementioned issues, it is pertinent to highlight that it is firmly established in legal precedents that the proceedings conducted before the Claims Tribunal are in the nature of an inquiry. Further, procedural approach adopted by an accident claims' tribunal mirrors that of a civil court (National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Pushpa Rana & Ors. 2009 ACJ 287). In civil proceedings, the establishment of facts hinges on a MACT No. 484/2020 Shashi Bala Vs. Pankaj Pandey and anr. Page 4 of 38 preponderance of probabilities, rather than being bound by the strict rules of evidence or the higher standard of beyond reasonable doubt, as required in criminal cases. The burden of proof in civil cases is lighter than in criminal cases, and the burden to decide claim petition under The Motor Vehicles Act is even lesser as compared to a civil litigation. In Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors (2009) 13 SC 530, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that negligence must be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view must be adopted in reaching a conclusion.
10. Keeping in mind the aforementioned legal principle for adjudicating the present issue, this Tribunal has thoroughly gone through the testimony of the witnesses and all the material available on record. Also, careful consideration has been given to the arguments addressed by the Learned Counsels for all the parties.
The factum of accident:
11. In this matter to prove the occurrence of the accident as well as the rashness and negligence on the part of the driving of offending vehicle by respondent no.1, the petitioner (PW-1) in her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A had deposed as under:-
"1. That deponent is the petitioner/injured in the above noted case and is well conversant with the facts and is circumstances of the case and is competent to swear present affidavit.
2. That deponent says that she is residing at the above mentioned address and doing private job and on 05.12.2019, I was going to my office Kamla MACT No. 484/2020 Shashi Bala Vs. Pankaj Pandey and anr. Page 5 of 38 Nagar on my scooty bearing No. DL-7SCE-4212 (Silver Colour) at about 09.00 am, when deponent reached at Metro Gate No. 6 towards Lothiyan Road turn, meanwhile the offending vehicle bearing registration no. HR-32G-4712 (Motorcycle Hero Super-Splendor), which was being driven by the driver/respondent no. 1 in a very rash and negligent came behind right side and hit the deponent's scooty, due to which the deponent with her scooty fell on road and someone made call on 100 number and said driver of offending vehicle took the deponent to Aruna Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital, where her MLC No. 3280/19 was prepared as she received multiple injury on her body.
3. That deponent says that she received serious injury in the said accident caused by the respondent no. 1/driver of the offending vehicle, specifically on her leg as a rod was inserted in her right leg and she became 42 % disabled by Right leg, and she remained under treatment from several Hospital, time to time such as from Total Orthopaedic Solutions, at 15-A, Pocket-B, Mayur Vihar, Phase-II, Delhi-10091, and Ram Lal Kundan Lal Orthopaedig Hospital & R.K. Maternity Home Orthopaedic & Trauma Research Centre, situated at Plot No. 8, Pandav Nagar, Patparganj, Delhi.
4. That deponent says that at the time of accident, driver of offending vehicle namely Pankaj Pandey had assured the deponent to pay/bear all her medical expenses, but thereafter, he denied for the same, due to which, deponent could not got lodge FIR at the time of accident and 100 number call was kept pending and when respondent no. 1/Pankaj Pandey refused to pay/bear the expenses of medical, then having no option, on 23.12.2019, deponent got lodged FIR No. 376/2019, u/s 279/337 IPC, P.S. Kashmeri Gate, Delhi, against the accused person/respondents.
5. That deponent says that at the time of accident, she was aged about 28 years and she was working as an Office Executive at Vexil Business Process Services Private Limited, having its Regd. Office at 80-f, Kamla Nagar, Delhi-110007 and earning MACT No. 484/2020 Shashi Bala Vs. Pankaj Pandey and anr. Page 6 of 38 Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) per month, but due to the said accident, she had to quit her job.
6. That deponent says that aforesaid accident took place due to sole negligence and carelessness of he driver/respondent of the aforesaid vehicle/ motorcycle. The said accident could have averted, had the respondent driven the offending vehicle carefully and with slow speed.
7. That the deponent says that deponent incurred approx. Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only) in respect of her medical expenses, special diet etc., and due to this accident deponent and her family have suffered mental and physical pain and agony, loss of money, loss of special diets, loss of disfiguration, and other general and specific damages provided in the law, which cannot be compensated in terms of money.
8. That in the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the deponent/petitioner is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh only) from the respondents as all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the deponent/petitioner being driver and owner of the offending vehicle."
12. PW-1, has proved the factum of the accident and the identity of the respondent no.1. She has unequivocally testified that on 05.12.2019, she was going to her office at Kamla Nagar on her scooty bearing No. DL-7SCE-4212 (Silver Colour) at about 09.00 AM and when she reached at Metro Gate No. 6 towards Lothiyan Road turn, the offending vehicle bearing registration no. HR-32G-4712 (Motorcycle Hero Super-Splendor), which was being driven by the driver/respondent no. 1 in a very rash and negligent came behind right side and hit her scooty, due to which the deponent with her scooty fell on the road. She further deposed that someone called on 100 number and the driver of the MACT No. 484/2020 Shashi Bala Vs. Pankaj Pandey and anr. Page 7 of 38 offending vehicle took the petitioner/ injured to Aruna Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital where she was treated vide MLC No. 3280/19. She also deposed that she received multiple injuries on her body. The deposition of PW-1 as to the manner of the accident and the driving of the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent no. 1 remained unshaken during cross-examination of the said witness and in fact was strengthened during the same. Although she admitted that the Respondent no. 1 had taken her to the hospital but she clarified that "Respondent tried to fled away from the spot and persons gathered restrained him and thereafter he took me to hospital" . She also deposed that "It is further incorrect that R-1 was falsely implicated in the case as he had performed obligation on humanitarian ground." She further deposed that "It is further incorrect that there was no liability of R-1 as the vehicle of R-1 was not involved in any manner."
13. It is the case of respondent no.1 that it was the petitioner who was rash and negligent in riding her scooty and not the respondent no.1. He has also filed a complaint on record to the Commissioner of Police and exhibited the same as Ex. R1W1/A. He has further filed the postal receipts and exhibited the same as R1W1/B. However, it is imperative to point out that the accident took place in the year 2019, the present case was filed in the year 2020 and the postal receipts are dated 02.03.2022. Thus, the complaint has been clearly filed as an afterthought and not at the time when the accident took place. Further, when he was asked in his cross-examination if he had pursued the complaint, he answered in the negative.
MACT No. 484/2020 Shashi Bala Vs. Pankaj Pandey and anr. Page 8 of 3814. Moreover, the petitioner had no prior acquaintance with respondent no.1 before the accident, and it is undisputed that there existed no pre-existing animosity between them. Therefore, it defies every logic as to why the petitioner would falsely implicate respondent no.1 if he was not the one driving the offending vehicle. No convincing material has been brought on record by the respondents to show that respondent no. 1 was not rash and negligent while driving the offending vehicle. From the testimony of PW-1 and entire record, it stands proved that respondent no.1 acted in a rash and negligent manner while driving his vehicle due to which the petitioner suffered grievous injuries.
15. Furthermore, in view of filing of DAR containing the charge-sheet for the offences u/s 279/338 IPC and other relevant documents against the respondent no. 1 and in terms of the judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Vs. Pushpa Rana & Ors. 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, respondent no. 1 Pankaj Pandey (driver cum owner of the offending vehicle) is held to be negligent on the basis of preponderance of probability. From the DAR, it also stands established that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no. 2, Reliance General Insurance Co. vide policy no. 84521542633196 valid from 08.02.2019 to 07.02.2020. It is the case of respondent no. 2 insurance company that the insurance policy was fake and thus, they are not liable to indemnify respondent no. 1. This issue will be dealt with later.
The injury:
16. The petitioner (PW-1) testified that due to the accident, she sustained grievous injuries. She asserted that upon the accident, she was MACT No. 484/2020 Shashi Bala Vs. Pankaj Pandey and anr. Page 9 of 38 taken to was taken to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital where she was treated vide MLC no. 3280/2019 dated 05.12.2019. The alleged history has been mentioned as "road traffic accident". The injury on the said MLC has been opined to be 'grievous'. It is further the case of the petitioner that she had left from Aruna Asaf Ali hospital and had taken further treatment at Ram Lal Kundan Lal Orthopaedic Hospital & R.K. Maternity Home where she remained under treatment from 05.12.2019 to 08.12.2019.
17. Furthermore, the petitioner had filed an application to be examined for assessment of physical disability. She was examined by the Medical Board at Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital and vide certificate bearing no. 1579 dated 18.02.2021, it has been observed that the petitioner is a case of "# Proximal Tibia R. and is physically disabled and has 42% (Forty Two percent) permanent (physical impairment) in relation to her right lower limb. It has also been noted that this condition is non progressive and not likely to improve.
18. From the above deposition and record, it stands proved on record that the petitioner had suffered grievous injury in relation to her left lower limb and has permanent disability of 42% in relation to the said lower limb.
19. From the above deposition and in totality of the circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner has been able to bring on record sufficient facts so as to prove at the scales of preponderance of probabilities that the accident in question took MACT No. 484/2020 Shashi Bala Vs. Pankaj Pandey and anr. Page 10 of 38 place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration number HR-32G-4712 by its driver/respondent no. 1 on the date and time of the accident and that due to the said accident, the petitioner had suffered grievous injury and permanent disability of 42%.
Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
Issue no. 2:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? (OPP)
20. The onus of proving the above issue was upon the petitioner/injured. It has already been concluded in the preceding paragraphs while deciding the issue no. 1, that the petitioner had suffered injury in her right lower limb and she has permanent disability of 42% in relation to the said lower limb.
21. The petitioner is certainly entitled for compensation in view of decision of the discussion on the above issues. Before proceeding further to decide the present issue, it would be apposite to encapsulate the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its guiding lamp post judgment for ascertaining just compensation in road vehicular injury cases. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 34, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"General principles relating to compensation in injury cases
4. The provision of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation MACT No. 484/2020 Shashi Bala Vs. Pankaj Pandey and anr. Page 11 of 38 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 tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467).
5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, 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 MACT No. 484/2020 Shashi Bala Vs. Pankaj Pandey and anr. Page 12 of 38 (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i),
(ii)(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. 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. Decision of this Court and 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.
6. 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 to a person's MACT No. 484/2020 Shashi Bala Vs. Pankaj Pandey and anr. Page 13 of 38 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 accidents 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 (`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.
7. 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%.
8. 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 MACT No. 484/2020 Shashi Bala Vs. Pankaj Pandey and anr. Page 14 of 38 of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, 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. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently 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 terns 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 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 vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567).
9. 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 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 MACT No. 484/2020 Shashi Bala Vs. Pankaj Pandey and anr. Page 15 of 38 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.
10. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or
(iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of `loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of MACT No. 484/2020 Shashi Bala Vs. Pankaj Pandey and anr. Page 16 of 38 loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may."
22. In view of the above law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in injury cases, award needs to be passed only under heads of medical expenses, loss of earning during treatment period and damages for pain, suffering and trauma. However, in cases of serious injuries, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the claim of the claimant, award additionally needs to be passed under the heads of loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability suffered, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (including loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. The assessment of future medical expenses would depend upon specific medical evidence/advise for further treatment and costs thereof. The determination of damages on account of pain and suffering, loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life would depend upon the age of victim, nature of injury(ies)/deprivation/disability suffered by victim and MACT No. 484/2020 Shashi Bala Vs. Pankaj Pandey and anr. Page 17 of 38 the effect thereof on life of the petitioner. The process would involve determination/assessment of lump-sum amounts under those heads. In the case of assessment of loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, this Tribunal needs to first ascertain whether the disability noted/assessed by the medical board is temporary or permanent in nature. If the disability is permanent in nature, then whether it is a total permanent disability or partial permanent disability. If the disability has been referred/expressed in percentage terms, in reference to any specific limb then the effect of such disability of the limb on the function of entire body has to be ascertained. Once, the permanent disability is ascertained, then the Tribunal needs to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect the earning capacity of the claimant. To ascertain the same, the Tribunal needs to ascertain the avocation, profession and nature of work of the claimant before the incident. The Tribunal also needs to ascertain his age and then needs to ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of permanent disability and what he could not do as result of same. The Tribunal then also needs to ascertain whether the claimant is totality disabled from earning any kind of livelihood or whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on activities and functions which he was carrying on earlier or whether the claimant is prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood despite permanent disability suffered. After ascertaining the functional disability through the above process, the Tribunal needs to workout the loss of earning capacity per month. The Tribunal is thereafter required MACT No. 484/2020 Shashi Bala Vs. Pankaj Pandey and anr. Page 18 of 38 to workout loss of earning capacity per annum. An appropriate multiplier needs to be ascertained as per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 ACJ 1298 SC according to age of the injured/victim. The total loss of earning capacity then needs to be worked out multiplying appropriate multiplier ascertained with ascertained annual loss of earning capacity. This is a case where permanent disability is claimed and compensation is also demanded qua future loss of earnings on account of permanent disability, hence, this Tribunal now proceeds further step by step to decide the compensation/award under different heads applicable to the present matter in light of above preposition.
Determination of Injuries and Duration of the Treatment:
23. It would be appropriate to first ascertain the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner/ injured and duration of treatment as they need to be kept in mind while ascertaining the compensation under different applicable heads. The petitioner has filed her medical record to prove her nature of injuries as per which, injured has suffered grievous injuries in the incident in question. It has also been proved that she has suffered 42% disability in relation to her right lower limb. It has also been proved that the petitioner was hospitalised from the date of accident i.e. 05.12.2019 till 08.12.2019. Thus, her compensation is computed as follows:
Medical expenses:
24. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 1,97,504/- towards medical MACT No. 484/2020 Shashi Bala Vs. Pankaj Pandey and anr. Page 19 of 38 expenses in her Form XIV. In this regard, the petitioner has placed reliance on the following original medical bills:
Table No. 1Sr. No. Details of Bill Date Amount in Rs.
1. Bill no. 60081 issued by 05.12.2019 1150 Total Orthopaedic Solutions, Delhi.
2. Bill No. 872 issued by R. K. 06.12.2019 10,000/-
Surgical, Delhi.
3. Bill No. 0036750 issued by 06.12.2019 1429/-
R. K. Medical Store, Delhi.
4. Bill No. 0036871 issued by 07.12.2019 3129/-
R. K. Medical Store, Delhi.
5. Bill No. 0036870 issued by 07.12.2019 2244/-
R. K. Medical Store, Delhi.
6. Bill No. 0036929 issued by 07.12.2019 1402/-
R. K. Medical Store, Delhi.
7. Bill No. 783 issued by Om 07.12.2019 1190/-
Sai Medical Store, Delhi.
8. Bill No. CN02120 issued by 08.12.2019 917/-
R. K. Medical Store, Delhi.
9. Bill No. 0037002 issued by 08.12.2019 334/-
R. K. Medical Store, Delhi.
10. Bill No. 12795 issued by 08.12.2019 200/-
Hans Medicos, Delhi.
11. Bill No. 58752 issued by 08.12.2019 70,000/-
Ram Lal Kundan Lal Orthopaedic Hospital, Delhi.
12. Bill No. 2649 issued by Dr. 11.12.2019 800/-
Sushil Sharma, Delhi.
13. Bill No. 735162 issued by 11.12.2019 300/-
Ram Lal Kundan Lal Orthopaedic Hospital, Delhi.
14. Bill No. 13882 issued by 11.12.2019 485/-
Medicine Mart, Delhi.
15. Bill No. 2676 issued by Dr. 16.12.2019 800/-
Sushil Sharma, Delhi.
16. Bill No. 735630 issued by 16.12.2019 300/-
Ram Lal Kundan Lal Orthopaedic Hospital, Delhi.
MACT No. 484/2020 Shashi Bala Vs. Pankaj Pandey and anr. Page 20 of 3817. Bill No. 12245 issued by 16.12.2019 1422/-
Hans Medicos, Delhi.
18. Bill No. 2667 issued by Dr. 21.12.2019 3500/-
Sushil Sharma, Delhi.
19. Bill No. 0038275 issued by 21.12.2019 3000/-
R. K. Medical Store, Delhi.
20. Bill No. 736061 issued by 21.12.2019 300/-
Ram Lal Kundan Lal Orthopaedic Hospital, Delhi.
21. Bill No. 3401 issued by 22.12.2019 1486/-
Medicine Mart, Delhi.
22. Bill No. 2378 issued by 01.01.2020 1421/-
Sanjay Medical Store, Delhi.
23. Bill No. 2675 issued by Dr. 13.01.2020 800/-
Sushil Sharma, Delhi.
24. Bill No. 0040682 issued by 13.01.2020 836/-
R. K. Medical Store, Delhi.
25. Bill No. 738054 issued by 13.01.2020 400/-
Ram Lal Kundan Lal Orthopaedic Hospital, Delhi.
26. Bill No. 0041357 issued by 19.01.2020 65/-
R. K. Medical Store, Delhi.
27. Bill No. R0043694 issued 19.01.2020 743/-
by Mayur Pharmacy, Delhi.
28. Bill no. 80191 issued by 01.02.2020 1350 Total Orthopaedic Solutions, Delhi.
29. Bill no. 24888 issued by 01.02.2020 727Nitesh Medicos, Delhi.
30. Bill No. 12814 issued by 06.02.2020 400/-
Hans Medicos, Delhi.
31. Bill no. 25624 issued by 10.02.2020 774Nitesh Medicos, Delhi.
32. Bill no. 25702 issued by 11.02.2020 400Nitesh Medicos, Delhi.
33. Bill no. 11232 issued by 17.02.2020 583Shiv Medicos, Delhi.
34. Bill no. 11519 issued by 25.02.2020 550Shiv Medicos, Delhi.
35. Bill no. 8355 issued by Total 28.02.2020 1150 Orthopaedic Solutions, Delhi.
36. Bill no. 11780 issued by 03.03.2020 310Shiv Medicos, Delhi.
MACT No. 484/2020 Shashi Bala Vs. Pankaj Pandey and anr. Page 21 of 3837. Bill no. 456 issued by Total 22.03.2020 12000 Orthopaedic Solutions, Delhi.
38. Bill No. 3436 issued by 10.04.2021 366Hans Medicos, Delhi.
Total Rs. 1,27,263/-
25. The above medical bills were put to the witness in her cross examination but she denied that the same have been fabricated and wrongly filed in the court. The respondents did not lead any evidence to prove that the medical bills are false and fabricated. Hence, there is no reason to not believe the medical bills filed on record. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get the compensation for the bills mentioned in aforesaid Table No.1 i.e. Rs.1,27,263/-. Therefore, the petitioner/injured Shashi Bala shall be entitled to Rs.1,27,263/- towards medical expenses.
Loss of income:
26. Coming to the aspect of loss of income, the petitioner Shashi Bala claimed that she was working as an Office Executive at Vexil Business and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. She has filed her salary certificate which is Ex. PW-1/2. Her employer has categorically certified that the petitioner Shashi Bala was working with them and she was earning Rs. 25,000/- per month. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the petitioner regarding her employment and salary and no ground to not rely upon the salary certificate Ex. PW-1/2. Therefore, it is held that the monthly income of the petitioner/ injured Shashi Bala at the time of the accident i.e. on 05.12.2019 was Rs.25,000/-. Further, the petitioner has claimed that she was not able to work for 6 months.
MACT No. 484/2020 Shashi Bala Vs. Pankaj Pandey and anr. Page 22 of 38Keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to the Loss of Income for 03 months i.e. Rs.25,000/- x 3 = Rs. 75,000/-.
Pain and Suffering:
27. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs.1,00,000/- under the head pain and suffering. It is true that a particular amount cannot be fixed under the head pain and suffering which could be applicable to all cases as it varies from case to case. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that since the petitioner has received grievous injuries, therefore, petitioner must have suffered pain and sufferings owing to the said injuries. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner as mentioned in the MLC, this Tribunal hereby grants compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
Mental and Physical shock:
28. The petitioner/injured has claim Rs. 50,000/- under the head mental and physical shock. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner as mentioned in the MLC, this Tribunal hereby grants compensation of Rs. 20,000/- towards mental and physical shock to the petitioner.
Special Diet:
29. The petitioner has claimed Rs.50,000/- under the head special diet but there is no cogent evidence on record regarding money MACT No. 484/2020 Shashi Bala Vs. Pankaj Pandey and anr. Page 23 of 38 spent by the petitioner upon special diet. However, considering the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner, this Tribunal is of the opinion that petitioner must have spent some money under this head. Hence, this Tribunal hereby grant compensation of Rs. 5,000/- towards expenses incurred on special diet.
Conveyance charges:
30. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 25,000/- under the head conveyance charges but there is no cogent evidence for the same. However, considering the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner, this Tribunal is of the opinion that petitioner must have incurred some expense on conveyance. Hence, this Tribunal hereby grant compensation of Rs. 5,000/- towards conveyance charges.
Attendant charges:
31. The petitioner/ injured has claimed Rs. 50,000/- under this head, however, there is no cogent evidence on record for the money spent by the petitioner upon an attendant. However, taking into account the injuries suffered by her, Rs. 5,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under the head of attendant charges.
Loss of Amenities:
32. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs.50,000/- under this head but there is no cogent evidence on record for the same. However, taking into account the injuries suffered by her, Rs.20,000/- is awarded MACT No. 484/2020 Shashi Bala Vs. Pankaj Pandey and anr. Page 24 of 38 to the petitioner under the head loss of amenities.
Compensation for disfiguration:
33. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs.2,00,000/- under this head. Taking into account the injuries suffered by her and also noticing the condition of the leg of the petitioner, Rs.20,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Loss of marriage prospects:
34. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 50,000/- under this head. It is true that disability can affect the marriage prospects of the injured. Therefore, taking into account the age of the petitioner as well as the disability suffered by her, Rs. 50,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under the head loss of marriage prospects.
Future loss of income:
35. The petitioner Shashi Bala has claimed loss of future earning to the extent of Rs. 32,13,300/- in her Form XIV. It has already been established that the petitioner has suffered 42% disability in relation to her right lower limb. Since, the right leg of the petitioner has sustained permanent disability to the extent of 42% disability and the capacity of the petitioner to stand properly has been gravely affected, the functional disability of the petitioner shall be assessed at 21% in relation to the whole body. The income of the petitioner has been assessed as Rs. 25,000/- as on the date of accident.
MACT No. 484/2020 Shashi Bala Vs. Pankaj Pandey and anr. Page 25 of 3836. As per the Aadhar Card, the date of birth of the injured/ petitioner Shashi Bala is 08.02.1991, thus, as on the date of accident i.e. 05.12.2019, the petitioner was aged 28 years 09 months and 28 days old. Thus, she was more than 28 years old and less than 29 years of age. Accordingly, the Multiplier of seventeen (17) is taken for purposes of calculating the loss of income of the petitioner (Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision - 31.10.2017). Further, by adopting the principles laid down in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), the future prospects of Shashi Bala shall be 40% as she was below the age of 40 years at the time of accident on 05.12.2019.
37. As already discussed in the preceding para, the income of the petitioner has been taken as Rs. 25,000/-. In view of the above, the loss of Income on account of functional disability is calculated as under:
Monthly income Rs. 25,000/-
Annual Income Rs. 25,000/- x 12 =
Rs. 3,00,000/-
Add Future Prospects @ 40% Rs. 3,00,000/- x 40% =
Rs. 1,20,000/-
Total income Rs. 4,20,000/-
Disability @ 21% Rs. 4,20,000/- x 21%= Rs. 88,200/-
Loss of Income after multiplier (17) Rs. 88,200/- x 17 = Rs. 14,99,400/-
38. Thus, keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner as well as the disability suffered by her, it is held that the MACT No. 484/2020 Shashi Bala Vs. Pankaj Pandey and anr. Page 26 of 38 petitioner shall be entitled to Rs. 14,99,400/- under the head future loss of income.
39. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the material on record, and the settled principles and guidelines governing the injury cases like the present one, the compensation is being derived in the present case as under:-
NAME OF HEAD AMOUNT (in Rupees)
Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 1,27,263/-
Monthly income of injured Rs. 25,000/-
Loss of income of 03 months Rs. 75,000/-
Add future prospects @ 40% Rs. 25,000/- x 12 x 40% =
Rs. 1,20,000/-
Loss of future income (income X % Rs. 4,20,000/- x 21% x 17 = Rs. 14,99,400/-
Earning Capacity X Multiplier) Any other loss/expenditure Nil.
Mental & Physical Shock & Pain & Rs. 20,000/- + Rs. 20,000/-= Suffering Rs. 40,000/-
Special diet Rs. 5,000/-
Attendant charges Rs. 5,000/-
Conveyance charges Rs. 5,000/-
Loss of amenities Rs. 20,000/-
Disfiguration Rs. 20,000/-
Loss of Marriage prospects Rs. 50,000/-
Loss of earning, inconvenience, Nil.
hardship, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
MACT No. 484/2020 Shashi Bala Vs. Pankaj Pandey and anr. Page 27 of 38
future life etc.
Total Rs. 18,46,663/-
40. In the case of Benson George v Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 1540 of 2022 decided on 25.02.2022, Hon'ble Supreme Court had awarded an interest of 6% per annum. Therefore, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 23.10.2020 till realization.
DISBURSEMENT
41. The Financial Statement of the petitioner/injured was recorded by this Court/Tribunal. As per the said statement, the monthly expenses of her family are approximately Rs. 30,000/- per month.
42. Keeping in view the above, it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 18,46,663/- (Rupees Eighteen Lacs Forty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Three only), Rs. 1,46,663/- (Rupees One Lac Forty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Three only) plus entire interest amount be released to the petitioner/claimant Shashi Bala and the balance amount of Rs. 17,00,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs only) shall be put in 34 monthly fixed deposits in her name in MACAD account of equal amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 34 months respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred MACT No. 484/2020 Shashi Bala Vs. Pankaj Pandey and anr. Page 28 of 38 in her saving account maintained in a nationalized bank situated near the place of her residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM card.
43. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to the petitioner only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account in a bank near his residence with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if it has been issued the said ATM Card has been withdrawn and shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal.
44. The above FDR(s) shall be prepared with the following conditions as enumerated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors.:
(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be an individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any MACT No. 484/2020 Shashi Bala Vs. Pankaj Pandey and anr. Page 29 of 38 cheque book and/or debit card to claimants.
However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other branch of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque books and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and the claimant shall produced the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court for compliance.
45. In compliance of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award in the prescribed Format-XVI is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
1. Date of Accident: 05.12.2019
2. Name of the Injured: Shashi Bala
3. Age of the Injured: 28 years
4. Occupation of the Injured: Office Executive
5. Income of the Injured: Rs. 25,000/-
6. Nature of Injury: Grievous
7. Medical Treatment taken: Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital and Ram Lal Kundan Lal Orthopaedic Solutions
8. Period of Hospitalization: 05.12.2019 to 08.12.2019 MACT No. 484/2020 Shashi Bala Vs. Pankaj Pandey and anr. Page 30 of 38
9. Whether any permanent 42% disability?
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION Sr. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal No.
1. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 1,27,263/-
(ii) Expenditure on Special Diet Rs. 5,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on Rs. 5,000/-
Nursing/Attendant charges
(iv) Expenditure on Conveyance Rs. 5,000/-
(v) Monthly income of injured Rs. 25,000/-
(vi) Loss of income of 03 months Rs. 75,000/-
(vii) Add future prospects @ 40 % Rs. 25,000/- x 12 x 40% =
Rs. 1,20,000/-
viii) Any other loss which may Nil.
require any special treatment or
aid to the injured for the rest of
his life
2.
(i) Compensation for mental and Rs. 20,000/- + Rs. 20,000/-=
physical shock Rs. 40,000/-
(ii) Pain and Sufferings
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 20,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration
Rs. 20,000/-
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Rs. 50,000/-
MACT No. 484/2020 Shashi Bala Vs. Pankaj Pandey and anr. Page 31 of 38
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Nil.
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc.
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed 42% Permanent and nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Nil expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning 21% capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (income Rs. 4,20,000/- x 21% x 17 = Rs. 14,99,400/-
x % earning capacity x Multiplier)
4. Total Rs. 18,46,663/-
1(i+ii+iii+iv+vi) +2(i+ii+iii+iv+v) + 3(iv)
5. Total Compensation Rs. 18,46,663/-
Interest awarded 6%
6. Earlier award amount (which has
already been received by the
petitioner in terms of previous
award passed by Ld. -
Predecessor) to be deducted
from present award amount .
7. Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 4,21,654.71/-
award wef 23.10.2020 (03 years
09 months and 20 days)
MACT No. 484/2020 Shashi Bala Vs. Pankaj Pandey and anr. Page 32 of 38
8. Total amount including Interest Rs. 22,68,317.71/-
(rounded off to Rs. 22,68,318/-)
. Award amount released As mentioned in para no. 42
10. Award amount kept in FDRs As mentioned in para no. 42
11. Mode of disbursement of the As mentioned in para no. 42
award amount of the claimant(s)
12. Next date for compliance of the 13.09.2024
award
LIABILITY:
46. The offending vehicle was being driven and owned by respondent no. 1 Pankaj Pandey and insured with respondent no. 2, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
47. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 argued that the respondent no. 1 did not have a valid insurance policy and thus, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the respondent no.1. He further argued that he had examined Mr. Amit Kumar, an official from Reliance General Insurance, as R2W1 who proved the notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC as well as the postal receipts issued to Respondent no. 1 to produce a valid insurance policy but despite due service, he did not produce the same. Further and more importantly, in his cross- examination, Respondent no.1 has admitted that he has come to realise that his insurance policy was fake. Although, it is his case that when he bought the policy, he did not believe it to be fake but now, he has come to know that it is fake. Clearly, it is the duty of the insured to take the MACT No. 484/2020 Shashi Bala Vs. Pankaj Pandey and anr. Page 33 of 38 policy from a proper source and ensure that the policy is genuine. No liability can be fastened upon the insurance company if the insurance policy is fake. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify respondent no. 1.
In view of the above, respondent no. 1 shall pay the award amount to the petitioner.
Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly.
RELIEF
48. The respondent no. 1 - Pankaj Pandey is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 18,46,663/- (Rupees Eighteen Lacs Forty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Three only) along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 23.10.2020 till realization with the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the claimant, failing which the said respondent shall be liable to pay interest @ 7.5% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days.
Ahlmad shall e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost.
Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on 13.09.2024 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation MACT No. 484/2020 Shashi Bala Vs. Pankaj Pandey and anr. Page 34 of 38 amount within the time granted.
Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by RUCHIAnnounced in the open Court today RUCHI AGGARWAL AGGARWAL ASRANI on this 13th day of August, 2024. ASRANI Date:
2024.08.13 17:18:29 +0530 (Dr. RUCHI AGGARWAL ASRANI) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.MACT No. 484/2020 Shashi Bala Vs. Pankaj Pandey and anr. Page 35 of 38
FORM - XVII COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD 1 Date of Accident 05.12.2019 2 Date of filing of Form-I -
First Accident Report Not mentioned
(FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II
to the victim(s) Not mentioned
4 Date of receipt of Form-III
from the Driver Not mentioned
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV
from the Owner Not mentioned
6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the insurance Not mentioned
of the vehicle
7 Date of receipt of Form-
VIA and Form VIB from Not mentioned
the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII -
Detail Accident Report 15.10.2020
(DAR)
9 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
part of the Investigating No.
Officer? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the Not mentioned
Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated
MACT No. 484/2020 Shashi Bala Vs. Pankaj Pandey and anr. Page 36 of 38
Officer of the Insurance
Company admitted his Yes.
report within 30 days of the
DAR?
12 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
part of the Designated No.
Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether
any action/direction
warranted?
13 Date of response of the
claimant(s) to the offer of No response
the Insurance Company.
14 Date of award 13.08.2024
15 Whether the claimant(s)
were directed to open Yes.
savings bank account(s)
near their place of
residence?
16 Date of order by which
claimant(s) were directed to
open Savings Bank
Account(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN
card and Aadhar Card and 23.10.2020
the direction to the bank not
to issue any cheque
book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an
endorsement to this effect
on the passbook(s).
17 Date on which the
claimant(s) produced the 16.02.2024
passbook of their savings
bank account(s) near the
MACT No. 484/2020 Shashi Bala Vs. Pankaj Pandey and anr. Page 37 of 38
place of their residence
alongwith the endorsement,
PAN card and Aadhaar
Card?
18 Permanent residential As per Award.
address of the claimant(s).
19 Whether the claimant(s)
savings bank account(s) is
Yes.
near their place of
residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s)
were examined at the time
Yes. The Financial Statement of the claimant was of passing of the Award to recorded on 16.02.2024.
ascertain his/their financial condition?
Digitally signed by RUCHI RUCHI AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL ASRANI
ASRANI Date:
2024.08.13
17:18:37 +0530
(Dr. Ruchi Aggarwal Asrani)
PO, MACT-01 (Central),
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
13.08.2024
MACT No. 484/2020 Shashi Bala Vs. Pankaj Pandey and anr. Page 38 of 38