Delhi District Court
Master Sartaz@Yahiya Ansari (Dar) vs Sarvesh Kumar (65/19Ppp) on 30 May, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARU GUPTA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-01 (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No.: 378/19
Master Sartaj @ Yahiya Ansari vs. Sarvesh Kumar & anr.
CNR No.: DLSE01-003563-2019
1. Master Sartaj @ Yahiya Ansari
Through Gardian /father Noor Alam
R/o RZA-79/A, Gali no. 1,
Pul Pehladpur, Near MittalChawk,
Mulla Colony, South East, Delhi
.....Petitioner
Versus
1. Sarvesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Shyam Prakash
R/o F-4/46, Molarbandh,
Badarpur, New Delhi-110044
......Driver cum owner/Respondent no.1
2. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Office at: N-34, Bombay Life Building Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001 ......Insurance Company/Respondent no.2 MACT No: 378/19 Master Sartaj @ Yahiya Ansari vs. Sarvesh Kumar & anr. P.No. 1 of 23 ss Date of accident : 28.03.2019 Date of filing of DAR : 20.05.2019 Date of Decision : 30.05.2024 AWARD
1. The present DAR arises out of road accident that occurred on 28.03.2019, in which the petitioner (Master Sartaj @ Yahiya Ansari) allegedly suffered grievous injury.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.03.2019, at about 11:00 AM, at Lobar Chawk, an accident was reported to have occurred. Injured was taken to Safdarjung Hospital by his father who informed that when his son (7 years of age) was walking on Labor Chawk, a vehicle no. DL-9CL-7772 (hereinafter referred as the offending vehicle) came at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner and drove the vehicle over the feet of his son. The driver of the offending vehicle was apprehended by public who was identified as Sarvesh Kumar/Respondent no.1. In the hospital, injured was treated and his MLC was prepared. Injured remained hospitalized for treatment from 28.03.2019 till 05.04.2019. An FIR no. 65/2019 was registered u/s 279/337 of IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle. Upon investigation charge sheet was filed before concerned Ld. Magistrate.
3. Respondent no.1 is driver cum owner and Respondent no.2 is the insurance company with which such offending vehicle was insured. In response to the DAR, Respondent no.2/Insurance MACT No: 378/19 Master Sartaj @ Yahiya Ansari vs. Sarvesh Kumar & anr. P.No. 2 of 23 ss company filed a legal offer and did not raise any statutory defence. No reply was filed on behalf of Respondent no.1.
4. After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed on 22.08.2019.
1. Whether the injured suffered injuries in a road traffic accident dated 28.03.2019 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no.DL-9CL-7772 driven cum owner by R1, and insured with R2 ? OPP.
2. Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
5. Thereafter, evidence was led by the petitioner by examining Sh. Noor Alam (father of injured) as PW-1 and one Kutabuddin (eye witness) as PW-2.
PW-1/father of injured Sh. Noor Alam led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied upon discharge summery of the injured as Ex.PW1/1, his treatment papers as Ex.PW1/2, FIR, site plan and other documents as Ex.PW1/3, bills Ex.PW1/4, his ID card as Ex.PW1/5 and ID card of the injured as Ex.Pw1/6. PW-1 was duly cross examined by all the Respondents.
PW-2/eye witness Sh. Kutabuddin tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW2/A in which he deposed the factum and the manner of the accident and that he took the victim/injured to the Safdarjung hospital where the injured was treated and his MLC was prepared. PW-2 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for R2.
MACT No: 378/19 Master Sartaj @ Yahiya Ansari vs. Sarvesh Kumar & anr. P.No. 3 of 23 ss
6. Respondents did not lead any evidence despite opportunity.
7. Final arguments in details were addressed by the parties. While it is argued on behalf of the petitioner that Respondents are liable compensate the petitioner as it stands proved that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving by Respondent no. 1 and the same has resulted in permanent disability to the petitioner, on the other hand, Respondent no.2 has disowned its liability to compensate on the ground that the injured contributed to the negligence by walking on the road, unattended. It is further argued that even the disability suffered by the injured is only 8% and cannot be categorized as 'permanent disability' as the bones of a minor are susceptible to growth and recovery faster than adults.
8. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, evidence adduced and arguments addressed, issue wise findings are as under:
Issue No. 1Whether the injured suffered injuries in a road traffic accident dated 28.03.2019 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no.DL-9CL-7772 driven cum owner by R1, and insured with R2 ? OPP.
9. Before proceeding to decide the above issue, it is apposite to note that as a settled principle of law, proceedings under The Motor Vehicle Act are not considered akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not applicable.
MACT No: 378/19 Master Sartaj @ Yahiya Ansari vs. Sarvesh Kumar & anr. P.No. 4 of 23 ss Reliance is placed upon decision in Bimla Devi & ors. vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & ors. (2009) 13 SC 535, in Parmeshwari vs. Amir Chand & ors., 2011 (1) SCR 1096 and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ 287, wherein it has been held that the negligence has to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view has to be taken.
10. In the present case, father of the injured has examined himself as PW-1 wherein he has testified as to the occurrence of the accident and the expenditure incurred by him on the treatment of his minor son/injured. During cross examination PW-1 has admitted that he is not an eye witness of this case and at the same time denied negligence on his part for letting his son unattended on a public road.
PW-2 has testified as an eye witness to the accident and alleged that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by Respondent no.1. Respondent no. 1 has not cross examined PW-2. He has not led any defence either nor filed any reply denying the accident or rash and negligent driving by him.
11. In the present case, police after investigation had filed charge sheet against Respondent no.1 under Section 279/338 of IPC which is also suggestive of negligence of respondent no.1 in causing the accident. In National Insurance Co. vs. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, it was laid down that completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet are sufficient proof of negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
MACT No: 378/19 Master Sartaj @ Yahiya Ansari vs. Sarvesh Kumar & anr. P.No. 5 of 23 ss
12. The driver of the offending vehicle has not entered the witness box or raised any defence to negate or refute the allegations of rash and negligent driving. It may further be noted that in Cholamandlam insurance company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh 2009 (3) AD Delhi 310, it was held that if driver of offending vehicle does not enter the witness box, an adverse inference can be drawn against him. In the present case also, driver did not enter into the witness box to controvert the claim of petitioner or even to explain circumstances of accident.
13. In the present case, the spot of accident as reflected in the site plan is a junction to a three way road. The accident has not occurred in the center of that junction but on its side which possibly was used by the pedestrians as the same is not far from the adjoining block. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the injured was irresponsibly let by his parents unattended on the road. Even if a child of 7 years was walking near the junction to a three way road, the driver of the offending vehicle was bound to be careful and should have maintained a reasonably slow speed at such junction, allowing him to apply break spontaneously. The fact that the offending vehicle ran over the foot of the minor child causing injury of such a nature that led to disability of 8% is strongly suggestive of the fact that the speed of the offending vehicle must have been more than the expected. Hence, no contributory negligence can be attributed on the part of the injured.
MACT No: 378/19 Master Sartaj @ Yahiya Ansari vs. Sarvesh Kumar & anr. P.No. 6 of 23 ss
14. In totality of circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the claimant have been able to prove at the scales of preponement of probabilities that the accident in question, took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing no. DL-9CL-7772 by its driver/respondent no.1 on the date and time of accident. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioner/ claimant/applicant and against the respondents.
Issue no. 2 Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP.
15. Apart from the issue of contributory negligence which already stands discussed and decided under issue no. 1, no statutory defence has been raised by Respondent no.2. Insurance policy issued by Respondent no.2 in favor of Respondent no.1 qua the offending vehicle has not been disputed and as such, Respondent no.2 is liable to compensate the petitioner under its contractual liability towards Respondent no.1.
16. Further it is noted that 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 MACT No: 378/19 Master Sartaj @ Yahiya Ansari vs. Sarvesh Kumar & anr. P.No. 7 of 23 ss would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
16.1. In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). 16.2. 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.
16.3. 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.
16.4. Award under the head of future medical expenses--Item
(iii)--depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof.
MACT No: 378/19 Master Sartaj @ Yahiya Ansari vs. Sarvesh Kumar & anr. P.No. 8 of 23 ss 16.5. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages--Items (iv), (v) and (vi)--involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decisions of Hon'ble SC and Hon'ble High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. 16.6. It was observed by Hon'ble Sc in such case of Raj Kumar (supra) that what usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability--Item (ii) (a).
17. In the present case, petitioner has claimed disability on account of the injuries suffered in the accident. As per the disability certificate issued by Pt. Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital, Delhi, petitioner/injured has been assessed to be suffering from 8% disability in relation to his right lower limb. Considering the age of the injured (which was about 7 years at the time of the accident as well as assessment of disability), it is likely that with growth, natural fusion of bones may occurre which may reduce the disability. The compensation payable in case of such disability is governed by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Master Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager National Insurance Company Ltd. Civil Appeal no. 7139/2013, decided on 26.08.2013 wherein it was held:
"...12. Though it is difficult to have an accurate assessment of the compensation in the case of children suffering disability on account of a motor vehicle accident, having regard to the relevant factors, precedence and the approach of various High Courts, we are of the view that the MACT No: 378/19 Master Sartaj @ Yahiya Ansari vs. Sarvesh Kumar & anr. P.No. 9 of 23 ss appropriate compensation on all other heads in addition to the actual expenditure for treatment, attendant, etc., should be, if the disability is above 10% and upto 30% to the whole body, Rs.3 lakhs; upto 60%, Rs.4 lakhs; upto 90%, Rs. 5 lakhs and above 90% is should be Rs.6 lakhs. For permanent disability upto 10%, it should be Re 1 lakh, unless there is exceptional circumstances to take different yardstick..."
Thus, compensation payable on account of disability of 8% would be Re 1 lakh.
18. This court has also take into account the actual expenditure on the treatment, attendant, pain and suffering, future medical expenses which may be required for correction of the disability and incidental expenses. Having regard to the law as discussed above, in the present case award amount is calculated as under:
19. In this background of material and evidence on record, in the present case having regard to the law as also discussed above regarding compensation, in the present case award amount is calculated as under:
Sl. Pecuniary loss : - Quantum
no.
1. (I) Expenditure on treatment : having Rs.7932/-
regard to material on record including
documents as discussed above.
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance : Rs.10,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : Rs.10,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing / attendant : Rs.20,000/-
(v) Loss of income : Injured is a child Not applicable
(aged about 7 years at the time of
accident)
(vi) Cost of artificial limbs (if NA
applicable) :
MACT No: 378/19 Master Sartaj @ Yahiya Ansari vs. Sarvesh Kumar & anr. P.No. 10 of 23 ss
(vii) Any other loss / expenditure : Not applicable
2. Non-Pecuniary Loss :
(I) Compensation of mental and Granted in column physical shock : no.2 (ii)
(ii) Pain and suffering : Pain and Rs.1,00,000/- suffering already undergone and to be suffered in future, mental and physical shock , hardship , inconvenience and discomfort etc. and loss of amenities of life on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Loss of amenities of life : Already granted
(iv) Disfiguration : NA
(v) Loss of marriage prospects : Nil
(vi) Discomfort, inconvenience and Rs.25,000/-
loss of earnings to the parents during
the period of hospitalization.
(vii) Future medical expenses for Rs.25,000/-
correction of disability and incidental expenses for such treatment.
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity (I) Percentage of disability assessed The petitioner has and nature of disability as permanent suffered 8% or temporary permanent disability in his right lower limb.
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Already granted expectation of life span on account of disability : The petitioner has suffered 40% permanent disability in his right lower limb.
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning Already granted capacity in relation to disability: As already discussed above.
MACT No: 378/19 Master Sartaj @ Yahiya Ansari vs. Sarvesh Kumar & anr. P.No. 11 of 23 ss
(iv) Loss of future Income: Not applicable.
Total Compensation Rs.1,97,932/-
Deduction, if any, Nil.
Total Compensation after deduction Nil.
Interest : All above amount
shall be along
with interest @ 9
% per annum on
total principal
award amount
from date of filing
of DAR till actual
realization.
20. Having regard to the prevailing rate of interest and the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, including in the case of Erudhaya Priya vs State Express Transport decided on 27 July, 2020, Civil Appeal Nos. 2811-2812 OF 2020 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.8495-8496 of 2018], which is three Judges Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, such interest @ 9% per annum is deemed fit and accordingly granted in the present case.
21. The total compensation payable to the claimant/injured would be Rs.1,97,932/- with simple interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR till its actual realization.
Liability
22. As already discussed, principal award amount/ compensation will be payable by the insurance company of MACT No: 378/19 Master Sartaj @ Yahiya Ansari vs. Sarvesh Kumar & anr. P.No. 12 of 23 ss offending vehicle with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR till actual realization.
Directions Regarding Deposit of Award Amount In Bank:
23. In compliance of directions issued vide order dated 16.11.2021 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition Civil No.534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India the award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT SAVING ACCOUNT No. 00000042706875094, IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir in the prescribed format i.e. MCOP Number on the file of (Claims Tribunal Name) Date of award, Compensation Amount, Income Tax Deduction at Source, Bank Transaction Reference No./Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. In turn, the State Bank of India, Saket Courts Branch shall receive the deposited sum and capture the above information and furnish a statement of account on a daily basis to the Nazir of this Tribunal to reconcile the deposits of compensation and the respective MCOPs towards which such deposits are made. On such deposits being made, the insurance company shall submit a letter to the Nazir of this Tribunal enclosing a copy of the said bank advice, in prescribed format as above, as per which the deposit made to the bank account of this Tribunal, to enable this Tribunal to keep tab on the deposits made and the MCOPs for which they were made. The Payment advice for remittance of compensation is as under:
MACT No: 378/19 Master Sartaj @ Yahiya Ansari vs. Sarvesh Kumar & anr. P.No. 13 of 23 ss PAYMENT ADVICE FOR REMITTANCE OF COMPENSATION :
............ Bank ................... To:
............... Court ........................ We confirm remittance of compensation as follows on instructions of ................................... (insurance company):- MCOP Number On the file of (Claims Tribunal Name), Place Date of award Amount Deposited, Income Tax Deduction at Source, if any Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. Insurance company of offending vehicle, on deposit, shall also send a copy of the payment advice in above format to this Tribunal and serve a copy of the same on the claimants or their counsel as the case may be.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP).
24. This court is in receipt of the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors whereby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has formulated MACAD(Motor Accident Claims Annunity Deposit Scheme) which has been made effective from 01.01.2019. The said orders dated 07.12.2018 also mentions that 21 banks including State Bank of India is one of such banks which are to adhere to MACAD. The State Bank of India, Saket Courts, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
MACT No: 378/19 Master Sartaj @ Yahiya Ansari vs. Sarvesh Kumar & anr. P.No. 14 of 23 ss Apportionment:-
25. Another issue which is to be decided is out of such Award amount, how much is to be released at present and how much is to kept in the form of FDR for future financial used of the petitioner.
26. At this stage, it is relevant to the refer to the judgment of A. V. Padma & Ors. Vs., R. Venugopal & Ors. (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 378:
"......In the case of Susamma Thomas (supra), this Court issued certain guidelines in order to "safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries due to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation".
Even as per the guidelines issued by this Court Court, long term fixed deposit of amount of compensation is mandatory only in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows. In the case of illiterate claimants, the Tribunal is allowed to consider the request for lumpsum payment for effecting purchase of any movable property such as agricultural implements, rickshaws etc. to earn a living. However, in such cases, the Tribunal shall make sure that the amount is actually spent for the purpose and the demand is not a ruse to withdraw money. In the case of semi-illiterate claimants, the Tribunal should ordinarily invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. But if the Tribunal is satisfied for reasons to be stated in writing that the whole or part of the amount is required for expanding an existing business or for purchasing some property for earning a livelihood, the Tribunal can release the whole or part of the amount of compensation to the claimant provided the Tribunal will ensure that the amount is invested for the purpose for which it is demanded and paid. In the case of literate persons, it is not mandatory to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit.
The expression used in guideline No. (iv) issued by this Court is that in the case of literate persons also the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i), whereas in the guideline Nos. (i), (ii), (iii) and (v), the MACT No: 378/19 Master Sartaj @ Yahiya Ansari vs. Sarvesh Kumar & anr. P.No. 15 of 23 ss expression used is that the Tribunal should. Moreover, in the case of literate persons, the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i) only if, having regard to the age, fiscal background and strata of the society to which the claimant belongs and such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks that in the larger interest of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded, it is necessary to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit.
Thus, sufficient discretion has been given to the Tribunal not to insist on investment of the compensation amount in long term fixed deposit and to release even the whole amount in the case of literate persons. However, the Tribunals are often taking a very rigid stand and are mechanically ordering in almost all cases that the amount of compensation shall be invested in long term fixed deposit. They are taking such a rigid and mechanical approach without understanding and appreciating the distinction drawn by this Court in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows and in the case of semiliterate and literate persons. It needs to be clarified that the above guidelines were issued by this Court only to safeguard the interests of the claimants, particularly the minors, illiterates and others whose amounts are sought to be withdrawn on some fictitious grounds. The guidelines were not to be understood to mean that the Tribunals were to take a rigid stand while considering an application seeking release of the money.
The guidelines cast a responsibility on the Tribunals to pass appropriate orders after examining each case on its own merits. However, it is seen that even in cases when there is no possibility or chance of the feed being frittered away by the beneficiary owing to ignorance, illiteracy or susceptibility to exploitation, investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit is directed by the Tribunals as a matter of course and in a routine manner, ignoring the object and the spirit of the guidelines issued by this Court and the genuine requirements of the claimants. Even in the case of literate persons, the Tribunals are automatically ordering investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit without recording that having regard to the age or fiscal background or the strata of the society to which the claimant belongs or such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks it necessary to direct such investment in the larger interests of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded to him.
MACT No: 378/19 Master Sartaj @ Yahiya Ansari vs. Sarvesh Kumar & anr. P.No. 16 of 23 ss The Tribunals very often dispose of the claimant's application for withdrawal of the amount of compensation in a mechanical manner and without proper application of mind. This has resulted in serious injustice and hardship to the claimants. The Tribunals appear to think that in view of the guidelines issued by this Court, in every case the amount of compensation should be invested in long term fixed deposit and under no circumstances the Tribunal can release the entire amount of compensation to the claimant even if it is required by him. Hence a change of attitude and approach on the part of the Tribunals is necessary in the interest of justice..."
27. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and the abovesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Supreme Court, whole amount i.e. Rs.1,97,932/- be released to the petitioner/injured in his bank account near his place of residence as per rule/ directions.
28. In accordance with the orders dated 08.02.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 in Rajesh Tyagi and others Vs. Jaibir Singh and others, Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager has been appointed as Nodal Officer of SBI having Phone no. 022-22741336/9414048606 and e-mail ID [email protected]. In case of any assistance or non compliance, the aforesaid Nodal Officer may be contacted to. A copy of this order be sent by e-mail to the aforesaid Nodal Officer of the aforesaid bank by the Ahlmad of the Court immediately in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court as contained in the orders dated 07.12.2018. The Nodal Officer of the bank shall ensure the disbursement of the MACT No: 378/19 Master Sartaj @ Yahiya Ansari vs. Sarvesh Kumar & anr. P.No. 17 of 23 ss award amount within three weeks of the receipt of the e-mail as mentioned in the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
FORM -VI-B SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1 Date of accident 28.03.2019 2 Name of injured Master Sartaj @ Yahiya Ansari 3 Age of the injured 7 years 4 Occupation of the Injured is a child.
injured 5 Income of the injured Not applicable.
6 Nature injury Disability.
7 Medical treatment Safdarjung Hospital, New
taken by the injured: Delhi
8 Period of 28.03.2019 till 05.04.2019.
Hospitalization
9 Whether any 8% in relation to right lower
permanent disability? limb.
MACT No: 378/19 Master Sartaj @ Yahiya Ansari vs. Sarvesh Kumar & anr. P.No. 18 of 23 ss
29. Copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. The copy of award be also sent to the DLSA and Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned.
30. List for compliance on 05.07.2024.
Announced in open Court On 30th May, 2024 (Charu Gupta) PO-MACT-01(South-East) Saket Court/ New Delhi MACT No: 378/19 Master Sartaj @ Yahiya Ansari vs. Sarvesh Kumar & anr. P.No. 19 of 23 ss