Delhi District Court
(6). Smt. Sridevi (Mother) vs Ravi & Ors. Page No.1/47 on 21 September, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA:
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE -1 + MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM
TRIBUNAL (NW) ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
_____________________________________________________________
UID No./CNR No. DLNW01-004698-2017
MACT CASE No. 453/17 (DAR)
In Re :
(1) Sh. Virender (Injured)
S/o Sh. Rajendera
R/o H. No. 108, Naveen Vihar,
Begumpur, Delhi
Legal heirs of deceased Rajender, Aged about 25 years
(2). Smt. Shobna (Wife )
W/o Late Sh. Rajender
(3). Ratan (Son )
S/o Late Sh. Rajender
(4). Raman (Son )
S/o Late Sh. Rajender
Both minor through their mother
and natural guardian Smt. Shobna
(5). Sh. Munni Lal (Father)
S/o Late Sh. Ram Charan.
(6). Smt. Sridevi (Mother)
W/o Sh. Munni Lal,
All R/o:-
H. No. 140, Naveen Vihar,
Begumpur, Rohini, Delhi Petitioners
____________________________________________________________
UID No./CNR No. DLNW01-001694-2019
MACT CASE No. 105/19 (CLAIM PETITION)
(1). Smt. Shobna (Wife )
W/o Late Sh. Rajender
(2). Ratan (Son )
Digitally signed
S/o Late Sh. Rajender
MUKESH by MUKESH
KUMAR GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2020.09.21
18:26:56 +0530
MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.1/47
(3). Raman (Son )
S/o Late Sh. Rajender
Both minor through their mother
and natural guardian Smt. Shobna
(4). Sh. Munni Lal (Father)
S/o Late Sh. Ram Charan.
(5). Smt. Sridevi (Mother)
W/o Sh. Munni Lal,
All R/o:-
H. No. 140, Naveen Vihar,
Begumpur, Rohini, Delhi Petitioners
_____________________________________________________________
UID No./CNR No. DLNW01-001694-2019
MACT CASE No. 106/19 (CLAIM PETITION : DISABILITY)
(1) Sh. Virender (Injured)
S/o Sh. Rajendera
H. No. 108, Naveen Vihar,
Begumpur, Delhii Petitioners.
Vs.
(1). Sh. Ravi,
S/o Sh. Raj Kumar
R/o 014/263, Sec-20,
Rohini, Delhi (Driver of the offending vehicle)
(2) Sh. Avinash
Tourist Taxi Services
R/o M-2, 2nd Floor,
M Block, Main market,
Greater Kailash-I, Delhi (Owner of the offending vehicle)
(3). United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Having its office at:- Satguru Market,
Digitally signed
by MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA
KUMAR
GUPTA
Date:
2020.09.21
18:27:07
416/1 & 2, Karkardooma, East Delhi-110091. (Insurer)
_____________________________________________________________
+0530
......Respondents
Date of filing of the DAR : 09.05.2017
Date of filing of Claim Petitions : 20.02.2019
First date before the undersigned : 28.09.2018
Date on which Arguments concluded : 10.09.2020
Date of Decision : 21.02.2020
MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.2/47
APPEARANCE (S): Sh. R. K. Gautam, Advocate Ld. Counsel for petitioners.
Shri Akshay Kumar, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for R-1 and R-2.
Ms. Neeru Garg, Ld. Counsel for R-3/insurer.
FORM - V COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE (EFFECTIVE W.E.F. 01.01.2019) TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD AS PER FORMAT REFERRED VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN FAO 842/2003 RAJESH TYAGI VS. JAIBIR SINGH & ORS.
1. Date of the accident 15.02.2017
2. Date of intimation of the accident by 09.05.2017 the investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal.
3. Date of intimation of the accident by 09.05.2017 the investigating officer to the insurance company.
4. Date of filing of Report under section ___ 173 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate.
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident 09.05.2017 Information Report (DAR) by the investigating Officer before Claims Tribunal.
6. Date of Service of DAR on the 09.05.2017 Insurance Company.
7. Date of service of DAR on the 09.05.2017 claimant(s).
8. Whether DAR was complete in all Yes respects?
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR ___ removed later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the Yes documents filed with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the No MUKESH Digitally signed by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA Investigating Officer? If so, whether KUMAR GUPTA Date:
2020.09.21 18:27:19 +0530 any action/direction warranted?MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.3/47
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Not mentioned. Officer by the insurance Company.
13. Name, address and contact number of Sh. R. Ranjan, the Designated Officer of the Insurance Dy. Manager, Company. United General Insurance Co.
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Yes Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
(Clause 22)
15. Whether the insurance company No admitted the liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the insurance company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or N/A deficiency on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to No legal offer has been the offer of the Insurance Company. filed.
18. Date of the Award. 21.09.2020
19. Whether the award was passed with No the consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed Yes to open saving bank account(s) near their place of residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to open saving bank on 02.02.2018 & on account (s) near his place of residence 26.07.2019.
and produce PAN Card and Aadhar
Card and the direction to the bank not
issue any cheque book/debit card to
the claimant(s) and make an
endorsement to this effect on the
passbook.
22. Date on which the claimant (s) Examination of petitioners
Digitally signed
produced the passbook of their saving to ascertain their financial
MUKESH by MUKESH
KUMAR GUPTA bank account near the place of their condition/needs, mode of
KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2020.09.21
18:27:28
residence along with the endorsement, disbursement and amount
+0530
MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.4/47
PAN Card and Aadhar Card? to be kept in fixed
deposits in terms of
clause 26 (now clause 29
of MCTAP) could not be
recorded due to lockdown
(covid-19 pandemic). In
these circumstances and
in view of the clause 29 of
MCTAP, the disbursement
is withheld. The Branch
Manager concerned shall
not release any amount to
the petitioners unless
compliance of clause 29
of MCTAP is made by
them. It is made specific
that as and when the
compliance of the clause
29 of MCTAP is made by
the petitioners, the
amount of compensation
shall be disbursed to
them in terms of the
disbursement made
below. Petitioners are at
liberty to move
appropriate application in
this regard.
23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned above.
Claimant(s).
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the claimant(s) and the address of the ___ bank with IFSC Code.
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank Yes account(s) is near his place of residence?
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined No at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition.
27. Account number, MICR number, IFSC State Bank of India, Code, name and branch of the bank of Rohini Courts, Delhi. MUKESH Digitally signed by MUKESH the Claims Tribunal in which the award IFSC code no. KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA Date: amount is to be deposited/transferred. SBIN0010323.
GUPTA 2020.09.21
18:27:35 +0530
MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.5/47
PETITION UNDER SECTION 166 & 140 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 FOR GRANT OF COMPENSATION JUDGMENT / AWARD:-
1. By way of present common judgment/award, I shall conscientiously dispose of the DAR filed by the investigating agency which has been converted into a claim petition under section 166(4) of M. V. Act 1988 as also the petitions U/s 166 & 140 of M. V. Act, 1988 filed by the petitioners (LR's of deceased Rajender) and injured Sh. Virender against the respondents for grant of compensation. It is made specific that the determination is common uptil issue no.1, where after which it is specific to the injuries/loses sustained by each petitioner wherever required.
2. The brief material facts relevant to decide the present claim/DAR petition as averred are that on 15.02.2017 at about 09:30 p.m., deceased Rajender along-with his friend was going on motorcycle bearing no. DL-7SS-
3477 which being driven by injured Sh. Virender with deceased Shri Rajender sitting as a pillion rider and when they reached near Sec-20, Rohini Pkt-16, D-2 Block, one car bearing registration no. DL-1NA-0056 which was being driven by its driver/R-1 in a rash and negligent manner hit the said motorcycle with a great force. As a result of which, deceased Rajender and his friend Virender both fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. After the accident, R-1/driver of the offending vehicle shifted them to Braham Shakti Hospital, Delhi in his car where the MLC of both of them were prepared but due to serious condition of deceased Rajender, he was referred to first Mahaveer Hospital and then shifted to RML Hospital where he was medically examined vide MLC No./Cr. No. 9478 and 1340/17 dated 16.02.2017. During treatment, Shri Rajender expired on 19.02.2017. An FIR bearing number 97/2017 dated 17.02.2017 U/s 279/337 IPC has been lodged with P.S. Begumpur against respondent no. 1 with regard to the accident in question which was later converted into sections 279/338/304-A Digitally signed MUKESH KUMAR by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA Date:
IPC and 3/181 of M.V. Act, 1988.
GUPTA 2020.09.21
18:27:52 +0530
MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.6/47
3. Respondent no. 1 did not file his reply/written statement despite opportunities being given. Initially, respondent no. 2 has filed WS on 06.06.2017. Subsequently, an application U/o 6 rule 17 r/w Sec 151 CPC was moved by respondent no.2 along-with the amended WS/replies. R-2 filed his amended reply/WS as some facts were left to be mentioned in his earlier reply. In his reply/WS, respondent no. 2 denied the averments of the DAR/claim petitions. He has submitted that the accident has been caused due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the motorcycle bearing no.
DL-7SS-3477 i.e. Sh. Virender, who stuck against the vehicle bearing no. DL-1NA-0056 as he could not control his motorcycle because of its excessive speed, as a result of which Sh. Virender sustained injuries and Rajender sustained fatal injuries. It is further submitted that Sh. Virender had been driving the motorcycle without holding a valid and effective DL. and he was not wearing a helmet at the relevant time. It is also contended that the vehicle bearing no. DL-1NA-0056 was duly insured with respondent no. 3/ M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. in the name of respondent no. 2/M/s. Avinash Tourist Taxi Service vide policy no. 0401813115P114448071 for the period from 24.02.2016 to 23.02.2017. It is further submitted that offending vehicle was being operated on contractual basis with M/s. Indus Company and Sh. Narinder Singh as proprietor/partner of the said a company and Sh. Raj Kumar, S/o Sh. Prithvi Raj has been the regular driver of the R-2 and on the previous night of fateful day, the said vehicle had been handed over to Sh. Raj Kumar by the respondent no.2 as he had to pick up the above said client which had been residing near his residence and without consent of R- 2, driver Sh. Raj kumar, has handed over the key of the car for Digitally signed washing/cleaning purpose to his son namely Sh. Ravi (respondent no. 1 MUKESH by MUKESH herein) who was the alleged driver of the alleged offending vehicle at the KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2020.09.21
18:28:04 +0530
relevant time.
4. Respondent no. 3/insurance company filed its reply where it has been admitted by the insurance company that the offending vehicle bearing MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.7/47 no. DL-1NA-0056 was duly insured with it vide policy No. 0401813115P11448071 valid from 24.06.2016 to 23.02.2017 in the name of respondent no. 2 herein. It is also contended that the driver of the offending vehicle (respondent no. 1) was not holding driving licence at the time of the accident and IO filed charge sheet against the driver U/s 279/338/304-A IPC & 3/181 Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 meaning thereby that there is breach of terms and condition of the insurance policy and as such the respondent no. 3/insurer is not liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.
5. On perusal of the pleadings and documents, the following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor of the tribunal on 22.08.2017:-
ISSUES.
1. Whether deceased Sh. Rajender S/o Sh. Munni Lal expired due to injuries suffered in road traffic accident on 15.02.2017 at about 09:30 p.m., at sec-20, Pkt-16, Block-D-2 Chook, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. car bearing no. DL-1NA-0056 which was being so driven by driver Sh. Ravi S/o Sh. Raj Kumar and hit motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-7SS-3477 driven by above named deceased on the said date, time and place and caused injury to Virendra, S/o Rajendra? OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
6. To substantiate their claims, petitioner Sh. Virender who was an eye witness and also sustained injuries in the alleged accident examined himself as PW-1. Smt. Shobhna (wife of deceased Rajender) examined her as PW-2 and Smt. Shri Devi (mother of deceased Rajender) as PW-3, Dr. Vivek, Associate Professor, Department of Orhto, RML and LHMC Hospital, Digitally signed Delhi as PW-4, Sh. Gulbir Singh, Medical Record I/C, from Brahm Shakti MUKESH by MUKESH Hospital, Delhi as PW-5 and Dr. Navneet Goel (M. S. Ortho), Sr. Specialist, KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2020.09.21
18:28:14 +0530
MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.8/47
Dr. B. S. A. Hospital, Sec-6, Rohini, Delhi as PW-6. No other witness was examined and PE was closed vide order dated 24.08.2018 of the Tribunal.
7. In rebuttal, respondent no. 1 on his part, did not lead any evidence. However, Sh. Jagtar Singh, partner of M/s. Avinash Tourist Taxi Service examined himself as R2W1.
8. Respondent no. 3/insurer of the offending vehicle examined one Sh. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Sr. Clerk, Regional Transport Office, Aagra as R3W1.
9. RE was closed vide order dated 06.03.2020 of the Tribunal.
10. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record including the pleadings, documents and the judgments cited by them. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the same. The issue wise determination is as under:-
ISSUE NO. 1"Whether deceased Sh. Rajender S/o Sh. Munni Lal expired due to injuries suffered in road traffic accident on 15.02.2017 at about 09:30 p.m., at sec-20, Pkt-16, Block-D-2 Chook, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. car bearing no. DL-1NA-0056 which was being so driven by driver Sh. Ravi S/o Sh. Raj Kumar and hit motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-7SS-3477 driven by above named deceased on the said date, time and place and caused injury to Virendra, S/o Rajendra ?OPP."
9. The onus to prove, the aforesaid issue is on the petitioners. To prove the said issue the petitioner Sh. Virender (injured) examined himself as PW-1, who in his testimony by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A deposed on the lines of averments made in the DAR/claim petitions. He deposed about the mode and the manner in which the accident has taken place resulting into grievous injuries and consequent disablement to his person and fatality of MUKESH Digitally signed by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA deceased Rajender. He has relied upon the following documents:
KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2020.09.21
18:28:26 +0530
MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.9/47
S. No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of Aadhaar card Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR)
2. Copy of bills of treatment Mark-A (colly.)
3. DAR filed by IO Ex. PW-1/3 (colly.)
10. PW-1 Sh. Virender was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the insurance company as well as Ld. counsel for the R-2/owner of the offending vehicle where he has deposed that he has studied upto 8 th class and his date of birth is 16.10.1989. He deposed that he was driving the motorcycle at the time of the accident without having any DL. He voluntarily deposed that he got driving license after the alleged accident. He has denied the suggestion that the alleged accident was occurred due to his own negligence or that the driver of the offending car was not at fault in the occurrence of the accident in question. He has further denied the suggestion that the medical bills Ex. PW-1/2 (colly) are false and fabricated or that he could not provide the medical bills Ex. PW-1/2 (colly.) to the IO at that time as he was not in the possession of said bills and the same have been procured subsequently for the purpose of getting compensation on the basis of said bills. He has further denied the suggestion that he has prepared the false and fabricated bills or that he is deposing falsely and did not bear any medical expenses.
11. In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2/owner of the offending vehicle, he has deposed that he has seen the offending vehicle for the first time only when it has hit his bike and he cannot say as to how the said car was being driven at the relevant time. He has further deposed that the medical treatment bills placed on record are not supported by any prescriptions of the doctors and he has not placed on record the laboratory report/X-ray report for which the bills have been placed on record. He has voluntarily deposed that he had given the reports to the Digitally signed MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA Date: IO. He has denied the suggestion that these bills are procured and fake bills.
GUPTA 2020.09.21
18:28:32 +0530
MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.10/47
He has further deposed that he remained admitted in Sidhi Vinayak Hospital for two days i.e. from 19.02.2017 to 20.02.2017. He further deposed that he does not know if IO has placed on record any documents showing his subsequent visits to the hospital/OPD. He has further deposed that he had visited the hospital for dressing after 20.02.2017. he has denied the suggestion that he has not placed any documents on record showing his subsequent visits to the hospital/OPD after 20.02.2017 or that he had not given any report of his laboratory to the IO.
12. PW-2 Smt. Shobhna (wife of deceased Rajender) in her testimony by way of affidavit Ex. PW-2/A deposed on her lines of averments made in the DAR/claim petition. She deposed about the mode and the manner in which the accident has taken place resulting into death of her husband Sh. Rajender. She has relied upon the following documents:
S. No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of Aadhaar card Ex. PW-2/1 (OSR)
2. Copy of Aadhaar card of deceased Rajender Ex. PW-2/2 (OSR)
3. DAR Ex. PW-1/3 (OSR)
4. Copy of salary certificate of deceased Ex. PW-2/3 (OSR) Rajender
5. Copy of birth certificate of deceased Rajender Ex. PW-2/4 (OSR)
6. Copy of birth certificate of Ratan Ex. PW-2/5 (OSR)
7. Copy of birth certificate of Raman Ex. PW-2/6 (OSR)
8. Copy of death certificate of Rajender Ex. PW-2/7 (OSR)
13. She was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3/insurer of the offending vehicle where she has deposed that she is not an eye witness of the accident and her deceased husband studied upto 7th class and her husband was working in private firm namely M/s. Abhishek Enterprises. She has admitted that she has not filed any appointment letter Digitally signed MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR or payment voucher which may show the employment of her deceased GUPTA KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2020.09.21
18:28:40
+0530
husband. She has denied the suggestion that her husband was not working MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.11/47 anywhere and she has not filed any document to show the income of her husband to be Rs. 14,400/- per month or that the deceased was not gainfully employed anywhere at the relevant time of accident in question.
14. PW-3 Smt. Shri Devi (mother of deceased Rajender) in her testimony by way of affidavit Ex. PW-3/A deposed on her lines of averments made in the DAR/claim petition. She has relied upon the document i.e. copy of her Aadhar card as Ex. PW-3/1 (OSR). She has been duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for insurance company where she has deposed that she is not an eye witness of the accident and her deceased son Rajender was studied upto 7th class and her deceased son was working in private firm M/s. Abhishek Enterprises. She has also admitted that she has not filed any appointment letter or payment voucher which may show the employment of her deceased son.
15. PW-4 Dr. Vivek, Associate Professor (Orthopedics), RML & LHMC Hospital, Delhi in his testimony has that patient/deceased Rajender was reported to RML Hospital on 16.02.2017 at about 06:10 a.m. vide MLC no. 1340 (primary MLC at Bhram Shakti Hospital, Delhi) and he was referred from Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi. He further deposed that the patient/deceased was admitted on the same day with compound grade-3 B fracture on leg bones of right side. He deposed that during the course of treatment, patient/deceased developed further complications because of injuries sustained in road traffic accident and expired on 19.02.2017 at about 11:02 a.m. He proved on record the Death summary with case sheet of patient/deceased Rajender as Ex. PW-4/1 (colly.) (OSR). He has been duly examined by Ld. Counsel for R-2/owner of the offending vehicle where he has deposed that the injuries sustained by the deceased Rajender very rarely may lead to lung complications which may cause death. He has further deposed that on the available record with him, this is the cause of death of Digitally signed MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA deceased and the postmortem report may confirm exactly. The aforesaid KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2020.09.21
18:28:47 +0530
MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.12/47
cross examination was also adopted by the Ld. Counsel for insurance company.
16. PW-5 Sh. Gulbir Singh, Medical Record I/C, from Brahm Shakti Hospital, Delhi in his testimony has proved on record the MLC of deceased Rajender as Ex. PW-5/1 (OSR). He has deposed that the said MLC was prepared by Dr. Afroz and his signature bears at point 'A'. He further deposed that he can identify the signature of Dr. Afroz as he had seen him to sign. He has also deposed that the patient/deceased Rajender was admitted in emergency and his MLC was prepared. Thereafter, he left the hospital to take further treatment in some other hospital. The witness was duly examined by Ld. Counsel for insurance company where he has deposed that he cannot say if any fracture has been mentioned in the MLC or doctor advised the patient for X-ray and also advised him to get admitted but the advised of the doctor was not honored by the patient/deceased and he never turned up for X-ray nor admission.
17. PW-6 Dr. Navneet Goel, M.S. (Orthopedics), Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi in his testimony has deposed that he has examined the injured/petitioner Virender on 23.03.2018 and after his examination, the board has issued permanent disability certificate bearing no. 997 dated 23.03.2018. He further deposed that the said disability certificate bears his signature at point 'A'. He deposed that as per assessment, the petitioner Virender has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 5% in relation to right lower limb. He also deposed that the petitioner Virender is having some difficulty in squatting on floor and taking turns. He proved on record the said disability certificate as Ex. PW-/1. The witness was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the insurer of the offending vehicle where he deposed that the disability sustained by the petitioner Virender seems to have been sustained because of the Motor Vehicular Accident. He further deposed that Digitally signed he cannot say whether the disability is of previous injuries sustained by the MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR GUPTA Date:
2020.09.21 MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.13/4718:28:55 +0530 petitioner. He further deposed that the petitioner Virender might have suffered some difficulties for doing his day to day work.
18. R-1 did not lead any evidence.
19. Sh. Jagtar Singh one of the partners of respondent no. 2 M/s Avinash Tourist Taxi Service has examined himself as R2W1 by way of affidavit Ex. R2W1/A. He relied upon the following documents: -
S. No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of partnership deed Ex. R2W1/1 (OSR)
2. Copy of policy Ex. R2W1/2
3. Copy of permit and fitness certificate of the Ex. R2W1/3 and Ex.
offending vehicle R2W1/3A
4. Copy of DL of R-1 Marked -A
20. R2W1 Sh. Jagtar Singh in his testimony has deposed that he is one of the partners respondent no. 2 firm vide partnership deed as Ex.
R2W1/1. He deposed that there has been no negligence on the part of respondent no. 1/driver of the offending vehicle bearing No. DL-1NA-0056. He further deposed that injured Virender had been driving his motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-7SS-3477 rashly, negligently and at a very high speed and as such could not control his motorcycle and got struck against the vehicle bearing No. DL-1NA-0056. He further deposed that the offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1NA-0056 was duly insured with respondent no. 3 in the name of respondent no. 2 vide policy no. 0401813115P114448071 for the period from 24.02.2016 to 23.02.2017. He proved on record the insurance policy as Ex. R3W1/2. He further deposed that the offending vehicle bearing no. DL-1NA-0056 was having valid permit at the relevant time. He proved on record the permit as Ex. R2W1/3. He Digitally signed further deposed that the offending vehicle had to be put in service on daily MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR GUPTA Date:
2020.09.21 basis, starting from Rohini, hence, the driver Sh. Raj Kumar used to keep the 18:29:02 +0530 MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.14/47 said vehicle at his residence only. He further deposed that the offending vehicle was having valid permit at the relevant point of time
21. R2W1 has been duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for insurance company as well as Ld. Counsel for petitioners, where he has deposed that his driver is Raj Kumar and he has maintained all the records of Raj Kumar as his employee/driver. He has further deposed that at the time of incident, Raj Kumar was his driver and later on, he came to know that Ravi was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. He has further deposed that he has not made any complaint that the R-1 was not his driver and his driver is one Sh. Raj Kumar. He voluntarily deposed that on visiting the Police Station, he informed the IO that Ravi Kumar was not his driver rather Raj Kumar was his driver. He has further deposed that he does not remember whether he or his partner filed any affidavit to IO. He has also deposed that Ex. R2W1/AX-1 bears his signature at point A and B and he submitted the said affidavit to the IO and he knew the contents of the said affidavit and said affidavit was prepared on his instruction. He has further deposed that the WS dated 05.06.2017 (Ex. R2W1/AX-2) bears his signatures at point A and he has signed the WS after reading the contents thereof and in the said WS nowhere mentioned that Ravi was not his driver.
He has further deposed that he has not filed any document to prove that Sh. Raj Kumar was his driver and Ravi was driving at the time of accident and he came to know subsequently that Ravi had been driving the said car at the time of accident in question. He has deposed that he has not filed any duty slip of dated 15.02.2017 in respect of driver and he voluntarily said that he possess the salary slips of Rajkumar and the lock sheet pertaining to the said vehicle and he can produce the same.
22. R3W1 Sh. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Senior Clerk, Regional Transport office, Agra proved on record the DL bearing no. 2525/AG/06 MUKESH Digitally signed by MUKESH issued from his department in the name of respondent no. 1 Sh. Ravi Kumar.
KUMAR GUPTAKUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2020.09.21
18:29:09 +0530 MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.15/47
He deposed that as per record, the said DL was issued only for motorcycle and LMV (Private) having validity for the period 22.03.2006 to 21.03.2026. He further deposed that apart from the aforesaid categories of vehicle, the aforesaid DL was never issued for any other category of vehicles from his department. He proved on record the same as Ex. R3W1/1. He further deposed that he has seen the DL already filed on judicial record and the said DL (Ex. R3W1/2) was never issued from his department. He also proved on record the report on Form 54 (Ex. R3W1/3) which has been issued from his department. The witness has further depoed that the holder of the same is not competent to driver any other classes of vehicle apart from the aforesaid two categories. He has further deposed that as per department, the DL of without gear vehicle is issued to a person who has attained the age of minimum 16 years and the DL for the categories of vehicle having gear is issued to a person who has attained the minimum age of 18 years. He has also proved on record the relevant report (Ex. R3W1/4) in respect of the DL of R-1 issued in the name of the court .
23. The witness has been duly subjected to cross examined by Ld. Counsel for instance company as well as counsel for R-2 where he has deposed that he has brought the record pertaining to DL no. 2525 and as per the said record, the said license is valid license issued by the authority for motorcycle LMV (Private). He has also admitted that DL bearing no. 2525 was issued in the name of Sh. Ravi Kumar Singh .
24. The witness was confronted with the document Ex. R3W1/2 and has been asked about its genuineness. To this, he replied that the document is not a genuine document as it contains the mark D/C which indicates issuance of duplicate license, which has not been issued in this case. He has further deposed that the same is not genuine as no fees for issuance of duplicate license was ever deposited. He has further deposed that the Digitally signed MUKESH KUMAR by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA license was issued in the year 2006. He has further stated that as per Date:
GUPTA 2020.09.21
18:29:17 +0530
MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.16/47
procedure, if a license is converted from private to commercial, endorsement is required to be made on the same and no separate license is issued. He has further deposed that the register in which the record of the DL issued by the authority is kept in safe custody of the official/ staff only. He has further deposed that at point X in the record brought by him Ex. R3W1/1 there is endorsement shown for the commercial vehicle for the license bearing no. 2525 in the name of Sh. Ravi Kumar. He has voluntarily deposed that the same is forged as no corresponding fee has been deposited and the department has already initiated an enquiry against the delinquent official who has even been lodged in jail. He has further deposed that he does not know his name nor his period of custody. He further deposed that he cannot bring the record, the custody or legal proceedings and he cannot say as to in which case the said person was imprisoned or proceeded against legally. He further deposed that the endorsement has not been cancelled yet. He has denied the suggestion that the said endorsement has not been cancelled because it was a genuine endorsement and the said DL was valid for driving a commercial vehicle also.
25. Now adverting to the statutory position, describing the nature of proceedings before a claims tribunal the Hon'ble Supreme court in State of Mysore Vs. S.S. Makapur, 1993 (2) SCR 943 has held :
"That tribunal exercising Quasi-Judicial function are not bound to follow the procedure prescribed for trial of actions in courts nor are they bound by strict rules of evidence. They can unlike courts, obtain all information for the points under the inquiry from all sources and through all channels, without being fettered by rules and procedure, which govern proceedings in court. The only obligation which the law casts on them is that they should not act on any information which they may receive unless they put it to the party against whom it is to be used and give him a fair opportunity to explain it. What is a fair opportunity depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but where such an opportunity has been given, the proceedings are not open to attack on Digitally signed MUKESH by MUKESH the ground that the inquiry was not conducted in accordance KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date: with the procedure followed in Courts"
GUPTA 2020.09.21
18:29:26 +0530
MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.17/47
26. Needless to mention here that the petitioners are required to prove the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of offending vehicle on the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not apply to the proceedings before the tribunal.
27. In Bimla Devi and Ors. Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors (2009) 13 SC 530, Supreme Court held that:-
" In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."
28. In National Insurance Company Pvt. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Rana & Ors., 2008 II AD (DELHI) 269. Hon'ble Delhi High court observed that "...on perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced (1) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR No. 955/2001, pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under Section 279/304-A, IPC against the driver, (iii) certified copy of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant also falls face down."
29. It is an undisputed fact that FIR No.0097/2017, U/s 279/338/304- A IPC and 3/181 M. V. Act P. S. Begumpur was registered with regard to the accident in question. Record shows that the FIR was registered promptly MUKESH Digitally signed by MUKESH and without any unnecessary delay. The medico legal report (Ex. PW-5/1) of KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR deceased Rajender bearing no. No. 1340/17 of Brahm Shakti Hospital, Delhi Date:
2020.09.21 GUPTA 18:29:34 +0530 MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.18/47 and subsequent MLC of RML Hospital MLC bearing no. 9478 (Ex. PW-4/1) proves the history of injuries to be sustained in road traffic accident. The postmortem report (also part of Ex. PW-1/3) clearly shows that the cause of death is due to sequel to injury to right lower limb and all injuries are ante- mortem in nature and could be possible in road traffic accident. The death summary of deceased issued from Dr. B. S. A. Hospital, Rohini, Delhi also shows that the cause of death is cardiorespiratory arrest secondary to pulmonary/fat embolism/palmonary odema. Similarly, MLC bearing no. 1341/17 of Bharam Shakti Hospital, Budh Vihar, Delhi (part of DAR, Ex.PW1/3) in respect of the petitioner/injured Virender proves that the injured/petitioner sustained grievous injuries on account of the accident in question.
30. Further, as per the mechanical inspection report (also part of DAR Ex. PW-1/3) of offending car, the same is found to have been damaged from front side as bumper middle & left side portion was broken while the motorcycle bearing No. DL-7SS-3477 which was being driven by injured Virender was found to be damaged/damaged from rear side meaning thereby the motorcycle was hit by the offending car from behind. Further, the testimony of PW-1 Sh. Virender (eye witness of the accident as well as injured/petitioner herein), proves that the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1. It has been duly proved that the alleged accident has taken place due to rash reckless and negligent driving of the offending car bearing no. DL-1NA-0056 which was being driven by respondent no. 1. The postmortem report of deceased Rajender shows the cause of death due to sequelae to injury to right lower limb. All injuries are ante mortem in nature and could be possible in a road traffic accident. Even, the MLC of injured Virender also shows the alleged history of RTA (Road Traffic Accident). Further, the respondent no. 1 who Digitally signed could only rebut the testimonies on the point of rashness and negligence has by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR GUPTA Date:
2020.09.21 18:29:40 neither examined himself nor cross examined any witness. The respondent +0530 MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.19/47 no. 2 owner of the offending vehicle has not examined Sh. Rajender Singh (father of respondent no. 1) who is allegedly the regular driver of the offending car from whom the car was allegedly taken by respondent no. 1 being son for the purpose of cleaning. Hence, an adverse inference can also be drawn against R-1 & R-2. Further, nothing contrary to the aforesaid has come on record. All this cumulatively proves that the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1NA-0056 was being driven by its driver/respondent no. 1 Ravi Kumar in a rash and negligent manner resulting into the injuries to the petitioner Virender and death of the deceased Rajender on the aforesaid date, time and place.
31. Issue No. 1 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO.2 "Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP."
32. It is to be borne in mind that Motor Vehicle Act 1988 does not stipulate holdings a trial for petition preferred u/s. 166 of the Act. The Claims Tribunal Under Section 168 of the Act holds an inquiry to determine compensation which must appear to it to be just and reasonable. Rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal stricto sensu.
33. The guiding principles for assessment of "just and reasonable compensation" has been laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in 2012 (10) JT 484 titled K. Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Despite many a pronouncment in a field, it still remains a challenging situation warranting sensitive as well as dispassionate exercise how to determine the incalculable sum in calculable terms of money in cases of personal injuries. In such assessment, neither sentiments nor emotions have any role.
Digitally signedMUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA There should be grant of "just compensation". Thus, it becomes a KUMAR Date:
2020.09.21 challenge for a court of law to determine "just compensation"
GUPTA 18:29:48
+0530 which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and simultaneously,
should not be a pittance. However, it would involve some MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.20/47 guesswork as there cannot be any mathematical exactitude or a precise formula to determine the quantum of compensation. In determination of compensation the fundamental criterion of "just compensation" should be inhered.
34. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while analyzing the entire law for grant of just compensation in fatal cases has recently in a judgment reported as 2017 (13) SCALE 12 : 2017 XI AD (SC) 113 titled National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. has held :-
57. Section 168 of the Act deals with the concept of "just compensation" and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standard because such determination can never be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect.
The aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an individual case. The conception of "just compensation" has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non-violation of the principle of equitability. In a case of death, the legal heirs of the claimants cannot expect a windfall. Simultaneously, the compensation granted cannot be an apology for compensation. It cannot be a pittance. Though the discretion vested in the tribunal is quite wide, yet it is obligatory on the part of the tribunal to be guided by the expression, that is, "just compensation". The determination has to be on the foundation of evidence brought on record as regards the age and income of the deceased and thereafter the apposite multiplier to be applied. The formula relating to multiplier has been clearly stated in Sarla Verma (supra) and it has been approved in Reshma Kumari (supra). The age and income, as stated earlier, have to be established by adducing evidence. The tribunal and the Courts have to bear in mind that the basic principle lies in pragmatic computation which is in proximity to reality. It is a well accepted norm that money cannot substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for grant of just compensation having uniformity of approach. There has to be a balance between the two extremes, that is, a windfall and the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum.
35. The petitioner no. 2 to 6 are legal heirs of deceased Sh. Rajender. Petitioner no. 2 is the wife of the deceased, petitioner no. 3 & 4 are the minor sons of the deceased and petitioner no. 5 & 6 are parents of Digitally signed MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA deceased consequent upon the death of deceased they have suffered a lot KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2020.09.21
18:29:55
+0530
mentally as well as monetarily. The petitioner Virender who also sustained MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.21/47 injuries in the accident in question and consequent disabalement has also suffered a lot mentally as monetarily. As such the petitioners are required to be compensated by way of just and reasonable compensation which under the various heads is determined as under:-
(A) QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION QUA DECEASED RAJENDER LOSS OF DEPENDECY
36. The petitioners have claimed that the deceased Rajender was working at Abhishek Enterprises at O-26, Budh Vihar Phase-1, New Delhi- 110086 as a helper and was earning Rs. 14,400/- per month and to prove the same, petitioner no. 2 Smt. Shobhna has placed on record salary certificate (Ex. PW-2/3) of deceased. Neither the petitioner no. 2 has examined any witness from the said company/employer to prove the said certificate/monthly income of the deceased nor she has placed on record any statements of accounts in which the entries can reflect whether any amount has been credited or not in the account of deceased on monthly basis. However, petitioner has placed on record school leaving certificate of deceased which shows that the deceased was studied upto VI class and was pursuing VII class. In these facts and circumstances, the tribunal has no yardstick except to consider the income of petitioner on the basis of minimum wages prevailing for the unskilled person at the time of accident in question as of Rs. 9,724/-.
Keeping in view of the fact that the tribunal is further not bound by strict rules of procedure and the fact that the present proceedings are under a beneficial legislation, the tribunal deem it appropriate to consider the minimum wages of a unskilled worker as the income of the deceased Rajender to be Rs. 9,724/- prevailing at the time of accident of deceased.
37. The deceased Sh. Rajender was survived by his wife, two sons Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA Date: and his parents. As such, 5 persons remains to be dependent upon 2020.09.21 GUPTA 18:30:02 deceased, one petitioner no. 2 Smt. Shobhana (wife of deceased) and +0530 MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.22/47 petitioner no. 3 & 4 Master Rattan and Master Aman (minor sons of deceased) and petitioner no. 5 & 6 Sh. Munni Lal and Smt. Shri Devi (parents of deceased). In these facts and circumstances, it is held there were only 5 dependents upon deceased Sh. Rajender at the time of accident. Therefore, the loss of dependency is to be taken as 3/4 th of the income of the deceased. As such a deduction of 1/4th is to be made from the income of the deceased accordingly and in terms of 2009 ACJ 1298 SC titled Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors.
38. The date of birth of deceased Rajender as per the school leaving certificate (Ex. PW-2/4) was 01.04.1991. As such he was aged about 26 years as on the date of accident. Therefore, the age of the deceased has been considered as 26 years and the multiplier of 17 would be applicable as per Sarla Verma (Supra) and Pranay Sethi (Supra).
Further, there would be an addition of 40% on the income of deceased for the purpose of the future prospects as the deceased was self- employed. Reliance placed upon Pranay Sethi (Supra).
Therefore, the calculation for compensation shall be:-
9724 +40%= 3889.6= 9724+3889.6= 13,613.6p Monthly Loss of dependency after deductions in terms of Sarla Verma (Supra) = 13,613.6X 3/4=10,210.20p.
Thus, the total loss of dependency on account of death of deceased comes to Rs. 10,210.20X12X17= 20,82,880.80p (Rupees Twenty Lac Eighty Two Thousand Eight Hundred and eighty with eighty paisa) Only, which is awarded as compensation under this head.
COMPENSATION ON ACCOUNT OF NON PECUNIARY LOSSES
39. Apart from above, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) is awarded under the head of loss of estate and Rs.Digitally signed
15,000/- (rupees Fifteen Thousand) is awarded towards funeral expenses.
by MUKESHMUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR GUPTA Date:
2020.09.21 18:30:09 Reliance is placed upon Praney Sethi (Supra). The petitioners shall also be +0530 MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.23/47 entitled to Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of spousal/progenial/filial consortium for loss of company, care, help, solace and affection of the deceased. There has been divergence and abashment regarding loss of love and affection in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram, 2018 SCC Online SC 1546 which has later been discussed by the Hon'ble High Court in case MAC. APP. 831/2018 titled Badal & Ors. Vs. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. decided on 08.04.2019 and also in judgment passed in case MAC. APP. 729/2019 titled Navin Parcha & Ors.
Ors. V. Deepak Kumar & Ors.
Ors. decided on 06.09.2019. However, the entire controversy is set at rest by a recent full bench judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur, Kaur, 2020 SCC online SC 410 decided on 30.06.2020 where the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the loss of consortium in itself is a comprehensive terms to include loss of love any affection and there is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head.
40. Thus, the total compensation qua deceased Rajender is assessed as under :
1. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY Rs. 20,82,880.80p
2. COMPENSATION ON Rs.15,000/- + ACCOUNT OF NON- Rs.15,000/- + PECUNIARY LOSS Rs. 2,00,000/-
= Rs. 2,30,000/-
= Rs. 23,12,880.80p
Rounded off Rs. 23,13,000/-
Digitally signed
MUKESH by MUKESH
KUMAR GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2020.09.21
18:30:16 +0530
MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.24/47
B QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION QUA PETITIONER VIRENDER
MEDICAL EXPENSES
41. PW-1 petitioner/injured himself, has deposed in his testimony that after the accident he inlcluding the driver of the offending vehicle was taken to Bhram Shakti Hospital, Budh Vihar, Delhi by PCR where the MLC No. 1341/17 of injured Virender was prepared by the doctor of the said hospital. Thereafter, he took his further treatment from Siddhi Vinyak Hospital where he remained admitted from 19.02.2017 to 20.02.2017. He proved on record the treatment record and medical bills as Ex. PW-1/2 (colly.) He has placed on record his medical bills of Rs. 23,953/- which he actually spent towards medicines/treatment. Therefore, this tribunal awards a total sum of Rs. 23,953/- (Rupees Twenty Three Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Three) Only under the head medical expenses.
LOSS OF INCOME
42. Petitioner namely Virender (PW1) has categorically deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/1) that at the time of accident he was working in a private Anshika Pet Factory at Bawana as a labourer and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month but he has failed to prove the same as he has not examined any witness from the said Factory/employer and has not placed on record any statement of account which shows monthly income of the petitioner and in his cross examination, he has also deposed that he studied upto 8th class. In these facts and circumstances, the tribunal has no yardstick except to consider the income of petitioner on the basis of minimum wages prevailing for the matriculation at the time of accident in question as of Rs.9,724/-.
43. Taking into account the testimony of the petitioner, entire medical records, hospitalization and Medico Legal Report and disability to the extent MUKESH Digitally signed by MUKESH of 5% in the right lower limb are sufficient to prove that the petitioner KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Virender might have not performed his job at least for three months due to Date:
GUPTA 2020.09.21
18:30:23 +0530
MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.25/47
the accident in question, this tribunal awards a sum of Rs. 29,172/- (9724X3) to the petitioner Virender under this head.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
44. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in "Vinod Kumar Bitoo Vs. Roshni & Ors." Passed in appeal MAC. APP 517/2010 decided on 05.07.2012, has held as under:-
"It is difficult to measure the pain and suffering in terms of money which is suffered by a victim on account of serious injuries caused to him in a motor vehicle accident. Since the compensation is required to be paid for pain and suffering an attempt must be made to award compensation which may have some objective relation with the pain and suffering underwent by the victim. For this purpose, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts normally consider the nature of injury; the part of the body where the injuries were sustained, surgeries, if any, underwent by the victim, confinement in the hospital and the duration of treatment".
45. PW-1 Virender, petitioner himself has deposed in his testimony by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A that he had sustained grievous injuries consequent to disablement due to the accident in question and his ocular testimony is duly corroborated by medical record Mark-A. Said treatment record would show that he had suffered grievous injuries. Thus, he would have undergone sufficient physical sufferings and mental shock on account of the accident in question. Considering the medical record and the nature of injuries and disablement suffered by injured/petitioner, this tribunal awards a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) Only towards pain and suffering to the petitioner/injured.
SPECIAL DIET & NUTRITON
46. In the present claim petition, there are sufficient material on record to establish that the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries and consequent disability due to the accident. The petitioner has deposed that he had spent money towards special diet and nutrition but has failed to place on MUKESH Digitally signed by MUKESH record any receipts. The petitioner without doubt needed sufficient nutrition in KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA Date: 2020.09.21 GUPTA 18:30:30 +0530 MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.26/47 order to ensure his good health. Though, the petitioner has failed to file any receipt thereto, however, considering, the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the petitioner must have taken special protein rich diet which is quantified as Rs. 25,000/-. Thus, Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand) Only is awarded under the head of Special diet and nutrition.
CONVEYANCE & ATTENDANT CHARGES
47. The petitioner has deposed in his testimony that after being discharged from the hospital, he visited the hospital for follow up in OPD on several occasions and used to pay money for to and fro journey. The petitioner has not specifically mentioned that as to how many times he visited to the hospital for follow up in OPD. Although, he has failed to lead any cogent evidence on record to show that how much amount had he spent on account of conveyance and attendant but taking into account the condition of the petitioner as well as the medical record, he might have incurred expenses towards conveyance charges while commuting to the concerned hospital as OPD patient for his regular checkup and follow up during the period of his medical treatment. He would have been definitely helped by some person either outsider or from his family, to perform his daily activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of his medical treatment. In these facts and circumstances, this tribunal awards a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) Only for conveyance charges and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) Only (Rs. 5,000/- per month at least for four months) for attendant charges.
LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES OF LIFE
48. As discussed, there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries. He is shown to have sustained injuries in right leg resulted into a disability to the extent of 5 % in relation to right lower limb which has been duly proved by PW-6 Dr. Navneet MUKESH Digitally signed by MUKESH Goel, Sr. Specialist, Dr. B.SA. Hospital, Sec-6, Delhi who has deposed that KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA Date: 2020.09.21 GUPTA 18:30:37 +0530 MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.27/47 he has examined the patient Virender on dated 23.03.2018 and after examining the petitioner, the board has issued permanent disability certificate bearing no. 997 dt. 23.03.2018 (Ex. PW-6/1) which bears his signature at point A. He has further deposed that as per disability certificate the patient has suffered permanent disability of 5 % in relation to right lower limb and patient is having some difficulty in squatting on floor and taking turns. Considering the testimony of the petitioner, entire medical records, hospitalization and Medico Legal Report including that the rods were inserted in the right leg of petitioner/injured Virender, it has been duly proved that petitioner Virender would not have been able to enjoy general amenities of life after the accident in question and his quality of life has been definitely affected. In view of the nature of injuries suffered by him and his continued treatment for considerable period and hospitalization, this tribunal awards Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life to the petitioner.
LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME/EARNING CAPACITY
49. As already discussed, the petitioner is shown to have sustained grievous injuries in his right leg resulted into a disability to the extent of 5% in relation to his right lower limb as evident from Disability certificate dated 23.03.2018 of Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini, Delhi, which though is proved by the doctors of the Dr. B.S. A. Hospital as PW-6, who has deposed that he has examined the patient Virender and after examining the petitioner, the board has issued permanent disability certificate bearing no. 997 dt. 23.03.2018 which bears his signature at point A. He has further deposed that as per disability certificate the patient has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 5% in relation to right lower limb and patient is having some difficulty in squatting on floor and taking turns. PW-6 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for insurance company where he has deposed that it seems the disability is because of the motor accident of the MUKESH Digitally signed by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA petitioner and he cannot say that the disability is of previous injuries KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2020.09.21 18:30:44 +0530 MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.28/47 sustained by the petitioner i.e. prior to the accident and injured might have suffered some difficulties for doing his day to day work. The disability certificate was prepared on the directions of this Tribunal and was not controverted. The age of the petitioner at the time of the accident was 28 years. Having regard to the percentage of loss of earning capacity in the light of injuries sustained by the petitioner Virender which has resulted into permanent disability to the extent of 5% in relation to right lower limb, his functional disability is taken as 50% to the total disability of 5% which comes out to be 2.5% rounded off to 3% in relation to whole body. Reliance placed on Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343. The monthly income as per minimum wages of the unskilled person at the time of the accident was Rs. 9,724/- per month which annually comes to Rs. 1,16,688/- (9724X12) Thus, the loss of future earning per annum comes to Rs. 3500.64p (3% of the annual income).
The multiplier applicable with reference to the age of petitioner is 17 as per 'Sarla Verma case' as the petitioner was aged about 28 years at the time of accident.
Thus, the total loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability is computed as Rs. 59,510.88p/- (Rs. 3,500.64X17). Therefore, this tribunal awards a sum of Rs. 59,510.88p (rounded off Rs. 59,600/-) on account of loss of future income on account of disability.
50. Thus, the total compensation qua petitioner Virender is assessed as under:-
1. Medical expenses Rs. 23,953/-
2. Loss of income Rs. 29,172/-
3. Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/-
4. Loss of general amenities and Rs. 50,000/-
enjoyment of life MUKESH Digitally signed by MUKESH 5. Conveyance, Attendant charges and Rs.15,000/-+ Rs.
KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA
Date: 2020.09.21
GUPTA 18:30:51 +0530
special diet 20,000/- +25,000/- =
MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.29/47
Rs.60,000/-
6. Loss of future income Rs. 59,600/-
Total Rs. 2,72,725/-
Rounded off Rs. 2,73,000/-
51. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
LIABILITY
52. Now the liability is to be fixed as to which of the respondents shall pay the amount of compensation and to what extent. The offending vehicle was admittedly insured at the time of accident with respondent no. 3/ United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vide policy baring no. 0401813115P11448071 valid from 24.06.2016 to 23.02.2017 in the name of respondent no. 2 and thus covers the date of accident. Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3/insurer of the offending vehicle has argued that the respondent no. 1 Ravi Kumar Singh was not authorized to drive the offending vehicle as the driving licence which has been brought on record is fake one. Ld. Counsel for Respondent No. 2 has taken two stands though they not actually mutually self destructive but they have been taken in a manner that they appears to be inconsistent. He has relied upon the judgments.
1. Mukund Dewagan Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. 2017 ACJ 20121 (SC)
2. New India Assurance Vs. Mobin MACA No. 604/2009 (DHC) dated 25.08.2017 .
3. New India Assurance Vs. Zakir Hussain CM9M) 1104/13 (DHC dated 12.07.2017)
53. First stand taken by the respondent No.2/owner that the Driver Ravi was actually not authorised to drive the said vehicle and it was his father Shri Raj Kumar who has taken vehicle from respondent No.2/owner on Digitally signed the night before the fateful day for the purpose of picking up the client who MUKESH by MUKESH has been residing near his residence. And on the fateful day, the vehicle was KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2020.09.21
18:30:58 +0530
MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.30/47
taken by son of the driver Shri Raj Kumar for driving when he has handed over the key of the Car for workshop for cleaning purpose. The stand has been taken almost half heartdly thereby creating self difficulty to prove the same with clarity as neither respondent No.1 Shri Ravi who happens to be son of the employed Driver of Respondent No.2 has entered into the witness box or has filed his defence by way of reply or has supported the case of respondent No. 2 at the time of filing the documents to the IO. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the father of respondent no.1 namely Shri Raj Kumar was actually the driver of the offending vehicle who has handed over the key of the vehicle without any knowledge of the owner. Driver Shri Raj Kumar has not been brought in the witness box in support of the contentions raised by the respondent No.2. It would be highly axiomatic to presume that the respondent No.1 who is son of driver Raj Kumar will convenietnly remain silent in respect of an accident which involved a vehicle which was actually given by his father. He has even preferred to remain silent about the accident, which he has committed and has for his own violence did not file any reply to by taking any constructive stand. Even if the best leverage is given to the respondent No.2, it could have clarified the record before the court about the incident which was taken place on fateful day for which Shri Raj Kumar should have been examined on the point that the offending vehicle was taken by him on the day before. Incidently, at the time of filing the evidence, the respondent No. 2 appears to have been not taken his stand and conveniently stated in the affidavit Ex. R2W1/A that the driver Shri Raj Kumar used to keep the vehicle at his residence and that the vehicle was put to for service on daily basis which he conveniently forgets at the time of first WS and takes khalf heartdly at the time of second WS. The witness Jagtar Singh (R2W1) has succinctly stated in the affidavit Ex. R2W1/A that there has been no negligence on the part of driver of the vehicle bearing registeration No. DL-1NA-0056 and it was the injured Digitally signed Virender who was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR GUPTA Date:
2020.09.21 18:31:04 +0530 Apparently R2W1 has been referring to the driver as R-1 Ravi and not his MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.31/47 father Shri Raj Kumar. He appears to be well aware about the driving skill of R-1 but he conviniently disowned the driver when he comes to the liability. The witness respondent no. 2 during cross-examinatioin has admitted that no document was filed to prove that Shri Raj Kumar was his driver not even his duty slip fo the day.
54. The 2nd stand which Ld. Counsel Shri Akshay Kumar has taken during the course of the arguments is that respondent No.1 Shri Ravi was holding a valid and effective Driving Licence on the day of accident as has come from testimony of R3W1 Shri Pawan Kumar Sharma who according to him has taken a clear stand during the course of his deposition. Ld. Counsel for Respondent No.2 has referred to document Ex.R3W1/1 by stating that it shows a valid and effective Driving Licence renewed from time to time in the name of R-1 Shri Ravi Kumar who was even authorised to drive the HTV. With force in his command, he has argued that just because the requisite fee for renewal has not been deposited, it does not make the licence invalid. Now this contention also needs to be examined in the light of arguments and testimony who has come on record.
55. First and foremost, it is a pre-requisite condition that a driver of a vehicle has to be major or should have attained the age of at least 18 years before issuance of licence. Though, it has also come on record through R3W1, that a licence can also be issued to a person who is 16 years of age or more in respect of a vehicle without gear. However, it is reiterated in the testimony of R3W1 who is official witness of insurer from the Office of Regional Transport Office at Agra that a licence for a vehicle with gear can be issued only to a person who is more than 18 years of age.
Now adverting to the age of respondent no. 1 Ravi. As per the document filed by R-1 himself to the IO, during the course of investigation Digitally signed by MUKESH more particularly the affidavit dated 21.02.2017 and the Elementary MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR GUPTA Date:
2020.09.21 18:31:12 Education Certificate alongwith it, the date of Birth of Ravi as 24.06.1996. +0530 MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.32/47 Incidentally, IO has also filed the Aadhar Card of respondent no. 1 Ravi which shows the date of birth is 01.01.1998. There is another document which appears to have been filed by respondent no.1 along-with the affidavit dated 21.02.2017 namely the Pass book of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Pooth Kalan having Account No. 18522282000100 which has been mentioned in his affidavit and opened in the name of respondent no. 1 Shri Ravi Kumar. The aforesaid account was opened on 27.08.2014 which shows the date of birth of respondent no. 1 Ravi as 12.12.1998. The same shows that account to be a minor account opened under the guardianship of his mother. Admittedly, respondent No.1 shows his date of birth in between 1996-1998 somewhere that too or there different date. The affidavit of R-1 Ravi which has been filed on record during investigation shows the Date of birth in the affidavit signed by respondent no. 1 himself as 24.06.1998. Now adverting to the date of issue of Driving Licence, Witness R3W1 shows that the licence was allegedly issued by Regional Transport Office, Agra on 22.03.2006 on which the date, the respondent no. 1 Ravi was either 10 years or 8 years old. The verification report dated 07.05.2019 filed in the court by the office of Regional Transport Office, Agra Ex.R3W1/1 produced before the Tribunal on dated 04.05.2000, R3W1/4 clearly mentioned that Drivng Licence No.2520/18/06 was issued in the name of respondent no. 1 Ravi Kumar S/o Shri Raj Kumar on 22.03.2006 for motorcycle and Light Motor Vehicle. It has further been mentioned that the document also shows that same was enhanced to HTV on 12.11.2007 with receipt No. 624096 for Rs.120/- which does not exist as amount was never deposited and therefore his licence was an invalid licence. Further, during the cross-examination of R3W1 by Ld. Counsel for the respondent No. 2/owner the witness had admitted that the said document is not a genuine document, the witness has even explained the reason for non-genuiness thereby mentioning that it contains the mark DC which indicates issuance of duplicate lincence which Digitally signed has not been issued in this regard and the same is not genuine because no MUKESH by MUKESH fee for issuance of duplicate licence was deposited. Further, during cross KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2020.09.21
18:31:19 +0530
MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.33/47
examination, it has also come on record that disciplinary action against the RTO officials of 2006 has been taken and even they are in custody. Thus, taken from the testimony of R3W1 and documents filed on record, it is clearly and categorically proved that the DL was a forged one since inception and even its renewal/upgradtion was forged. None of the judgments relied upon by Ld. Counsel applies to the facts of the present case. The contention raised by Ld. Counsels for R-2 is thus liable to be rejected completely.
Further, the Ld. Counsel Ms. Garg appearing on behalf of insurer has vehemently argued that the injured/petitioner Virender was not holding driving licence and the said fact has been duly proved in his deposition where he has deposed that he was driving the motorcycle at the time of the accident without having any DL. He voluntarily deposed that he got driving license after the alleged accident. Thus, he has also contributed in the alleged accident and as such certain amount from the compensation qua Virender should be reduced in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Since, the injured Virender was not holding driving licence at the time of accident, as such, it would be appropriate that 20% amount of compensation be reduced from the compensation qua injured Virender being contributory negligent in the accident. The amount after deduction of 20% comes out to Rs. 2,18,400/-.
The insurance policy is not disputed by the respondent no. 3/insurance company. Since, the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no. 3 at the time of accident. Therefore, the insurance company is, thus, liable to indemnify the insured u/s 149(1) of MV Act and hence, initially liable to pay the compensation amount as awarded by the Tribunal to the petitioners. However, the respondent no. 3/insurance company shall have the recovery rights to recover the awarded amount with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing of DAR/petition from the date of filing of Digitally signed DAR/petition till its realization from respondent no. 1 & 2 jointly and severally.
by MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
2020.09.21
GUPTA 18:31:25
+0530
MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.34/47
ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF
56. In view of the discussion and findings of this Tribunal on issue no. 1 and 2, this Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs. 23,13,000/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Thirteen Lacs) only qua deceased Rajender and Rs. 2,18,400/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Eighteen Thousand Four Hundred) only qua injured/petitioner Virender, including interim award, if any, along-with interest @ 9% per annum in favour of petitioners and against respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the DAR/petition i.e. 09.05.2017 till the date of its realization. Respondent no. 3 is directed to deposit the award with upto date interest within 30 days from today i.e. the date of passing the award. Reliance is placed on judgment "Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Devi & Ors., bearing MAC APP 165/2011 decided on 22.02.2016.
APPORTIONMENT
57. Examination of petitioners to ascertain their financial condition/needs, mode of disbursement and amount to be kept in fixed deposits in terms of clause 26 (now clause 29 of MCTAP) could not be recorded due to lockdown (covid-19 pandemic). In these circumstances and in view of the clause 29 of MCTAP, the disbursement is withheld. The Branch Manager concerned shall not release any amount to the petitioners unless compliance of clause 29 of MCTAP is made by them. It is made specific that as and when the compliance of the clause 29 of MCTAP is made by the petitioners, the amount of compensation shall be disbursed to them in terms of the disbursement made below. Petitioners are at liberty to move appropriate application in this regard.
58. The petitioners are at liberty to furnish their respective form 15G for the purpose of exemption in TDS directly to the office of insurance company. Accordingly, the award amount with interest is directed to be Digitally signed deposited by respondent no. 3/ United India Insurance Co. Ltd. in State Bank MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR GUPTA Date:
2020.09.21 of India, Branch Rohini Court Complex, Delhi initially which shall then 18:31:31 +0530 MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.35/47 transmit the amount MACAD account of the petitioners for maximum benefit of interest.
DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT IN TERMS OF THE CLAUSE 31 OF MCTAP
59. The aforesaid award amount shall be disbursed to the claimant(s) through the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme formulated by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO 842/2003 titled "Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir & Ors." However, till the time MACAD scheme becomes fully operational and to ensure that the petitioners are not put to any undue inconvenience , the fixed deposit may be opened subject to following conditions:
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint name (s) to be added in the saving bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the petitioners.
(b) The original fixed deposits shall be retained by the bank in their safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the petitioners.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant (s) as stipulated aforesaid.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR (s) be credited by electronic clearing system (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant (s) as mentioned aforesaid.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the tribunal.
(f) The concerned bank shall not to issue any cheque book and/or debit Digitally signed MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA Date: card to claimant (s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book GUPTA 2020.09.21 18:31:38 +0530 MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.36/47 have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall freeze debit card (s) issued in respect of the account of the claimant (s).
(g) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank alongwith the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
60. The respondent no. 3 i.e. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. shall give notice of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant(s) and shall file a compliance report with this Tribunal with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days of the deposit with the interest upto the date of notice of deposit to the claimant (s) with a copy of their counsel within 30 days of the award. The names and address of the claimant(s) are mentioned at page No. 1 of this award and the name and address of their counsel is as under:-
Sh. R. K. Gautam, Advocate, En. No. D-836/1990, Ch. No. 423, Rohiini Courts, Delhi-110085 M. No. 9811126110
61. It is made clear that at the time of deposit of award amount with the bank, the respondent no. 3 shall specifically mention the Case No., title of the case, date of award and the name of the court on the backside of the cheque and the respondent no. 3 shall also file the attested copy of the award, attested by its own officer, to the bank at the time of deposit of the amount with the bank. The Manager concerned of the bank is directed to comply the award and further directed to release the award amount to all the petitioners through bank accounts. Till the amount is released through the Digitally signed said accounts, the concerned banks shall keep the money in FDR's to avoid by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
2020.09.21 any loss of interest.
GUPTA 18:31:44
+0530
MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.37/47
62. R-3 i.e. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed to deposit the award amount within 30 days after sending notice of deposit to the petitioners.
63. Copy of this judgment/award be placed in connected files.
64. Copy of this judgment/award be given to petitioners and Ld. counsel for R-3 for compliance. Copy of order be also sent to concerned M.M and DSLSA as per clause 35 (ii) and 36 of MCTAP.
65. File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities. However, separate miscellaneous file be prepared for compliance of award in terms of clause 34 of MCTAP which is to be put up by Nazir of the tribunal along-with his report on 22.10.2020.
66. Copy of this award be also sent to the Nodal Officer State Bank of India, through e-mail ID i.e. [email protected] in terms of the order dated 22.02.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in case FAO No. 842/03 titled "Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir & Ors.
Announced in the open Court today i.e. on 21.09.2020.
Digitally signed (MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA)
MUKESH by MUKESH
KUMAR
KUMAR GUPTA ADJ-1 + MACT (N/W),
Date:
GUPTA 2020.09.21 ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
18:31:51 +0530
MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.38/47
FORM - IV A
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD OF DECEASED RAJENDER
1. Date of the accident: - 15.02.2017
2. Name of the deceased: - Rajender.
3. Age of deceased: -26 years (at the time of the accident).
4. Occupation of the deceased: - Deceased was working at Abhishek Enterprises at O-26, Budh Vihar, Phase-1, New Delhi as a helper.
5. Income of the deceased: - Rs. 9724/-.
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S. No. Name Age Relation
(i) Smt. Shobna 23 years Wife
(ii) Master Rattan 2 years Son
(iii) Master Raman 9 months Son
(iv) Sh. Munni Lal 70 years Father
(v) Smt. Shri Devi 67 years Mother
Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) 9724/- p.m.
Digitally signed
by MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2020.09.21
18:31:57
+0530
MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.39/47
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) = 9724X40%=3889.6p
= (9724 + 3889.6) = 13,613.6p
9. Less-Personal expenses of the 1/4 deduction deceased (C) 13,613.6X 1/4 = 3403.4p
10. Monthly loss of dependency 13,613.6p - 3403.4p [(A+B) - C =D] = 10,210.2p
11. Annual loss of dependency 10,210.2X12= 1,22,522.4p (Dx12) 12. Multiplier (E) 17
13. Total loss of dependency 1,22,522.4 X 17 =20,82,880.8p (Dx12xE = F)
14. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
15. Compensation for loss of Rs. 2,00,000/-
consortium (H)
16. Compensation for loss of estate(I) Rs. 15,000/-
17. Compensation towards funeral Rs. 15,000/-
expenses (J)
18. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 23,12,880.8p (F+G+H+I+J=K) (Rounded off or say Rs. 23,13,000/-)
19. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 9% P. A.
20. Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 7,02,074.71p award (L) 21 Total amount including interest Rs. 30,15,074.71p (K+L) Digitally signed MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2020.09.21 18:32:03 +0530 MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.40/47
22. Award amount released Examination of petitioners to ascertain their financial condition/needs, mode of disbursement and amount to be kept in fixed deposits in terms of clause 26 (now clause 29 of MCTAP) could not be recorded due to lockdown (covid-
19 pandemic). In these circumstances and in view of the clause 29 of MCTAP, the disbursement is withheld. The Branch Manager concerned shall not release any amount to the petitioners unless compliance of clause 29 of MCTAP is made by them. It is made specific that as and when the compliance of the clause 29 of MCTAP is made by the petitioners, the amount of compensation shall be disbursed to them in terms of the disbursement made below. Petitioners are at liberty to move appropriate application in this regard.
23. Award amount kept in FDRs ___
24. Mode of disbursement of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award amount to the claimant(s).
Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in terms of MUKESH Digitally signed by MUKESH clause 32 of MCTAP.
KUMAR GUPTAKUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2020.09.21
18:32:12 +0530
MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.41/47
25. Next Date for compliance of the 22.10.2020
award.
Digitally signed
MUKESH by MUKESH
KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA
Date: 2020.09.21
GUPTA 18:32:25 +0530
(MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA)
ADJ-01+MACT (NW).
Rohini Courts, Delhi.
MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.42/47
FORM - IV B
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD OF PETITIONER/INJURED VIRENDER
1. Date of the accident: - 15.02.2017.
2. Name of injured:- Sh. Virender.
3. Age of the injured:- 28 years (at the time of the accident)
4. Occupation of the injured:- Petitioner/injured was working in a private job at Anshika Pet Factory at Bawana as a labourer.
6. Nature of injury:- Grievous.
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured:- Petitioner/injured was removed to Bhram Shakti Hospital, Delhi.
8. Period of hospitalization: Not mentioned.
9. Whether any permanent disability? If yes, give details: Yes.
Petitioner/injured is having 5 % disability in relation to right lower limb.
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 29,953/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 15,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 25,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 20,000/-
(v) Loss of earning capacity ----
(vi) Loss of income Rs. 29,172/-
(vii) Any other loss which may require any --
MUKESH
Digitally signed
by MUKESH
KUMAR GUPTA
special treatment or aid to the injured
KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2020.09.21
18:32:33 +0530
MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.43/47
for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(I) Compensation for mental and --
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life --
(iv) Disfiguration --
(v) Loss of marriage prospects --
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, --
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and 5 % permanent disability in relation to right lower limb.
nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Rs. 50,000 expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (Income X% Having regard to the Earning capacity X Multiplier) percentage of loss of earning capacity in the light of injuries sustained by the petitioner Virender which has resulted into permanent disability to the extent of 5% in relation to right lower limb, Digitally signed his functional disability is MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR GUPTA Date:
2020.09.21 taken as 50% to the total 18:32:39 +0530 MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.44/47 disability of 5% which comes out to be 2.5% rounded off to 3% in relation to whole body. Reliance placed on Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343. The monthly income as per minimum wages of the unskilled person at the time of the accident was Rs.
9,724/- per month which annually comes to Rs. 1,16,688/- (9724X12) Thus, the loss of future earning per annum comes to Rs. 3500.64 (3% of the annual income). The multiplier applicable with reference to the age of petitioner is 17 as per 'Sarla Verma case' as the petitioner was aged about 28 years at the time of accident. Thus, the total loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability is computed as Rs. 59,510.88p/- (Rs. 3,500.64X17). Therefore, Digitally signed this tribunal awards a sum of MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR GUPTA Date: 2020.09.21 18:32:45 +0530 Rs. 59,510.88p rounded off MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.45/47 Rs. 59,600/- on account of loss of future income on account of disability. 14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 2,72,725/- (Rounded off Rs.2,73,000/-) Since, the injured Virender was not holding driving licence at the time of accident, as such, it would be appropriate that 20% amount of compensation be reduced from the compensation qua injured Virender being contributory negligent in the accident. The amount after deduction of 20% comes out to Rs. 2,18,400/- 15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% 16. Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 66,291.88p award 17. Total amount including interest Rs. 2,84,691.88p 18. Award amount released Examination of petitioner to ascertain his financial condition/needs, mode of disbursement and amount to Digitally signed be kept in fixed deposits in MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date: GUPTA 2020.09.21 18:32:51 +0530 MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.46/47 terms of clause 26 (now clause 29 of MCTAP) could not be recorded due to lockdown (covid-19 pandemic). In these circumstances and in view of the clause 29 of MCTAP, the disbursement is withheld. The Branch Manager concerned shall not release any amount to the petitioner unless compliance of clause 29 of MCTAP is made by her. It is made specific that as and when the compliance of the clause 29 of MCTAP is made by the petitioner, the amount of compensation shall be disbursed to him in terms of the disbursement made below. Petitioner is at liberty to move appropriate application in this regard. 19. Award amount kept in FDRs ____ 20. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in terms of amount to the claimant (s) (Clause29) clause 31 of MCTAP and amount to be kept in FDR's in terms of Clause 32 of MCTAP 21. Next date for compliance of the 22.10.2020 award. (Clause 31) MUKESH Digitally signed by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date: 2020.09.21 18:33:01 GUPTA +0530 (MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA) ADJ-1+MACT(N/W), Rohini Courts, Delhi MACT No. 453/17, MACT No. 105/19 and 106/19 Virender & Ors. Vs. Ravi & Ors. Page No.47/47