Delhi District Court
Vinay Kumar Rangan (Dar) vs Akash Kumar (Fir No.N 133/21, Ps Mal ... on 30 May, 2024
Vinay kumar Rangan vs. Akash Kumar and ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDESH KUMAR :
PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT : SOUTH DISTT. : SAKET
COURTS : NEW DELHI
Petition No. : 123/21
CNR No. DLST01- 003832-2021
VINAY KUMAR RANGAN VS. AKASH AND ORS.
FIR No. 133/21 PS Malaviya Nagar
Vinay Kumar Rangan
S/o Sh. Ram Lal
R/o Plot No. D-35 to 42,
T/f, Flat No. 306,
Prem Nagar, Uttam Nagar,
Delhi - 110059. ....PETITIONER
Versus
1. Akash
S/o Mahesh Ram
R/o 203, Aliganj, K.M. Pur,
New Delhi ....driver
2. Raja Sharma
S/o Rajesh Sharma
R/o Near Kohinur Mall
G-19 Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash-II,
New Delhi .....owner
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.
New Delhi. ... Insurance company
....RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution : 07.04.2021
Date of reserving of judgment/
order : 30.05.2024
Date of pronouncement : 30.05.2024
MACT No. 123/21 1/19
Vinay kumar Rangan vs. Akash Kumar and ors.
JUDGMENT:
1. By this award cum judgment, I shall dispose of claim petition under Section 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') filed by the petitioner Vinay Kumar Rangan for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident on 29.01.2021 near HDFC Bank, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of alleged offending vehicle bearing no. DL-3SEH-8035 being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3.
2. The facts as averred in the DAR are that on 29.01.2021 at about 3.00 PM while the petitioner Vinay Kumar Rangan was coming out from the HDFC Bank, Shivalik Branch, C-72, Corner Mkt and crossing the road for going back, suddenly the offending vehicle bearing no. DL-3SEH-8035 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit him and due to the impact, he sustained injuries in his right foot. As a result thereof, the claimant suffered 25% permanent physical impairment in respect of his right lower limb.
3. During the proceedings, the respondent no. 1/driver and respondent no. 3/ insurance company were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 26.09.2022 passed by my Ld. Predecessor and thereafter the respondent no. 2 also was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 13.12.2022 by my Ld. Predecessor. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for ex-parte evidence. However, on 15.07.2023 an application for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 26.09.2022 was filed by counsel for the insurance company which was allowed and one week's time was granted MACT No. 123/21 2/19 Vinay kumar Rangan vs. Akash Kumar and ors.
to the insurance company for filing its WS. However, the same was never filed by the insurance company.
4. In order to establish his claim, the injured Vinay Kumar examined himself as PW1. He filed his affidavit in evidence as Ex.PW1/A. He deposed on the lines of his claim and stated that he is working as a gold testor with S.P. Jewellers and earning approx. Rs.15000/- per month. On 29.01.2021 at about 3.00 PM while he was coming out from the HDFC Bank, Shivalik Branch, C-72, Corner Mkt crossing the road for going back suddenly the offending vehicle bearing no. DL-3SEH-8035 hit him and due to the impact he sustained injuries in his right foot. After that the bank employees took him by auto to AIIMS Trauma Centre where he was admitted. During the treatment he was operated twice i.e. on 30.01.2021 and thereafter on 31.01.2021 and discharged from the hospital on 02.02.2021. He deposed that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.1. The petitioner suffered 25% permanent disability due to this accident in the right lower limb. He has relied upon the following documents filed alongwith his affidavit.
1. Copy of his Aadhar card Ex.PW1/1.
2. Original copy of certificate issued by SP Jewellers Ex.PW1/2.
3. DAR as Ex.PW1/3 (colly).
4. Copy of MLC issued by AIIMS Trauma Centre Ex.PW1/4.
5. Copy of discharge summary Ex.PW1/5.
6. Copy of original bills appox Rs.8050/- Ex.PW1/6.
7. Copy of disability certificate issued by Madan Mohan Malaviya Hospital Ex.PW1/7.
In his cross-examination by Mr. Sandeep Jha, Ld. Counsel for the insurance company, he admitted that he met with the accident while he was crossing the road on foot. There was no MACT No. 123/21 3/19 Vinay kumar Rangan vs. Akash Kumar and ors.
zebra crossing, however the traffic was stopped due to the red light. He denied the suggestion that he was crossing the road through wrong side. However, he voluntarily stated that the respondent no. 1 came from the wrong side.
5. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contended that from the evidence of PW1 coupled with the record of criminal proceedings, the petitioner has proved the fact that it was the respondent no. 1 who was responsible for the grievous injuries caused to him due to his rash and negligent driving.
6. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the insurance company has argued that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the injured himself as he was coming from wrong side.
7. In the present case, the Investigating Officer had filed the DAR containing FIR, Charge sheet, site plan, MLC etc. Charge sheet has been filed against the respondent no.1. PW1 Vinay Kumar Rangan had categorically deposed about the occurrence of the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the Respondent No.1. No other version of accident has come on record except the one as narrated by injured. The statement of the injured that the offending vehicle hit him finds support from the fact that the I.O. seized the offending vehicle and got it mechanically inspected.
8. DAR and copies of criminal proceedings filed alongwith it are admissible in evidence and deemed to be correct under Rule 7 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 2008 unless proved to the MACT No. 123/21 4/19 Vinay kumar Rangan vs. Akash Kumar and ors.
contrary. Copies of criminal proceedings filed include FIR, chargesheet, site plan, MLC of the petitioner, mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle besides the documents pertains to the offending vehicle. Copies of criminal proceedings filed alongwith it have not been challenged and controverted by any of the respondents.
9. It is a settled legal position that while deciding a petition u/s 166 of the M V Act, the Claims Tribunal has to decide negligence on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Reference in this regard is made to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kaushnumma Begum and Others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, wherein it was held that the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of the driver of motor vehicle involved in the accident is of secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would make the petition maintainable u/s 166 & 140 of the M V Act.
10. Nevertheless, it is also a settled legal position that in a claim petition u/s 166 of the M V Act, burden is on the claimants/petitioners to prove negligence. The law to this effect was declared in Minu B Mehta Vs. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan (1977) 2 SC 441 was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Meena Variyal 2007 (5) SCC 428, which has been followed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a recent case, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Devki & Ors., MAC APP 165/2013 decided on 29.02.2016.
11. The petitioner in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A has clearly deposed MACT No. 123/21 5/19 Vinay kumar Rangan vs. Akash Kumar and ors.
that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving it rashly and negligently. He has narrated the manner in which the accident has taken place. His deposition on this fact has gone unrebutted by respondent no. 1, who has not even cared to cross-examine him on this aspect.
12. Further, it is pertinent to note that the respondent no. 1/ driver of the aforesaid vehicle was the material witness to throw light by testifying as to how and under what circumstances, the accident had taken place. However, he has preferred not to enter into the witness box during the course of the inquiry. He has not even cared to appear in the Court and was proceeded ex-parte. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle. The driver did not enter into the witness box to controvert the claim of the petitioner or even to explain the circumstances of accident. He never filed any complaint to any authority regarding his false implication. The evidence led by petitioner is unrebutted and un-controverted. He has not filed any complaint to any authority regarding his false implication. Insurance company also has not called the respondent no.1 or the IO to prove its case on the manner of accident.
13. On the basis of evidence on record, above observation and discussion it is proved that the abovesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of R1 Akash Kumar due to which the injured Vinay Kumar Rangan received injuries. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners.
MACT No. 123/21 6/19Vinay kumar Rangan vs. Akash Kumar and ors.
Findings on Issue no.2:
To what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled and from whom?
14. Now, the court has to assess as to how much compensation be awarded to the claimant and by whom? First of all the court has to decide as to whom the liability to pay the compensation is fastened.
15. As the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1, and owned by respondent no.2, so respondent no.1 is primarily liable and respondent no.2 is vicariously liable to compensate the petitioner. It is an admitted position on record that the vehicle was insured with respondent no.3, therefore, respondent no. 3 becomes contractually liable to compensate the petitioner for the amount.
16. Now the Court has to decide the compensation which the injured is entitled. Injured in road traffic accident is entitled to damages for the injury suffered by him arising out of use of Motor Vehicle under both non-pecuniary and pecuniary heads.
MEDICAL EXPENSES :
17. As per the MLC, the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries. The petitioner has filed medical bills to the tune of Rs.8,050/-. Medical bills are in the name of petitioner coincide with the period of treatment. These documents were never disputed. Keeping in view the nature of injuries and bills placed on record, I hereby grant a sum of Rs.8,050/- towards medical expenses.
MACT No. 123/21 7/19Vinay kumar Rangan vs. Akash Kumar and ors.
PAIN AND SUFFERINGS AND ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :
18. While discussing the criteria to ascertain the compensation for pain and sufferings by victim of vehicular accident, observations of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Satya Narain vs. Jai Kisan, FAO No.:709/02, date of decision: 02.02.2007 can be considered:
12. On account of pain and suffering, suffice would it be to note that it is difficult to measure pain and suffering in terms of a money value. However, compensation which has to be paid must bear some objective co-relation with the pain and suffering.
13. The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering would be :
(a) Nature of injury.
(b) Body part affected.
(c) Duration of the treatment.
Applying the above criteria to the facts of the present case where petitioner/injured has suffered 25% permanent physical impairment in relation to his left lower limb and keeping in view the period of hospitalization and duration of treatment, I am of the opinion that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- would be just and fair compensation towards his pain and sufferings and enjoyment of life.
SPECIAL DIET, CONVEYANCE AND ATTENDANT CHARGES :
19. In the present case the petitioner has not placed on record any document with regard to special diet, conveyance and attendant charges. However, the injuries on his person were such that he must have taken special diet for his early recovery. He must have spent some amount on conveyance and attendant. Therefore, looking into all the facts, I award Rs.40,000/- to the petitioner towards special diet, conveyance and MACT No. 123/21 8/19 Vinay kumar Rangan vs. Akash Kumar and ors.
attendant charges.
LOSS OF INCOME
20. The injured stated that he was working as a gold testor in SP Jewellers and was earning Rs.15000/- per month. He has placed on record one photocopy of Certificate issued by SP Jewellers wherein it is stated that Rs.15000/- per month was the income of the injured at the time of accident. The same is not disputed by the insurance company. Hence, Rs.15000/- per month is taken as approximate earning of the injured.
The injuries on the person of the petitioner were such that he must have remained out of work at least for six months. Taking a period of six months as bed rest, the loss of income comes to Rs.90,000/- i.e. (Rs.15,000/- x 6 ) I therefore, award Rs.90,000/- to the petitioner towards loss of income.
FUTURE LOSS OF INCOME ARISING OUT OF THE DISABILITY
21. The petitioner had suffered 25% permanent physical impairment in respect of Right Lower Limb. It was held in the case of "Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar & Ors. I (2012) ACC 1 (SC)" :-
"In the context of loss of future earning, any physical disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with reference to the nature of work being performed by the person suffering the disability. This is the basic premise and once that is grasped, it clearly follows that the same injury or loss may affect two different persons in different ways. Take the case of a marginal farmer who does his cultivation work himself and ploughs his land with his own two hands; or the puller of a cycle-
rickshaw, one of the main means of transport in hundreds of small towns all over the country. The MACT No. 123/21 9/19 Vinay kumar Rangan vs. Akash Kumar and ors.
loss of one of the legs either to the marginal farmer or the cycle-rickshaw-puller would be the end of the road insofar as their earning capacity is concerned. But in case of a person engaged in some kind of desk work in an office, the loss of a leg may not have the same effect. The loss of a leg (or for that matter the loss of any limb) to anyone is bound to have very traumatic effects on one's personal, family or social life but the loss of one of the legs to a person working in the office would not interfere with his work/earning capacity in the same degree as in the case of a marginal farmer or a cycle-rickshaw- puller.
The question of loss of earning capacity resulting from amputation of one the legs in the case of a tanker driver was considered by this Court in K. Janardhan v. United India Insurance Company Limited and another, (2008) 8 SCC 518. In that case, a tanker driver suffered serious injuries in a motor accident and as a result, his right leg was amputated upto the knee joint. He made a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation held that disability suffered by him as a result of the loss of the leg was 100% and awarded compensation to him on that basis. In appeal, the High Court, like in the present case, referred to the Schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and held that the loss of a leg on amputation amounted to reduction in the earning capacity by 60% and, accordingly, reduced the compensation awarded to the tanker driver. This Court set aside the High Court judgment and held that the tanker driver had suffered 100% disability and incapacity in earning his keep as a tanker driver as his right leg was amputated from the knee and, accordingly, restored the order passed by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation. In K. Janardhan this Court also referred to and relied upon an earlier decision of the Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata (1976) 1 SCC 289, in which a MACT No. 123/21 10/19 Vinay kumar Rangan vs. Akash Kumar and ors.
carpenter who suffered an amputation of his left arm from the elbow was held to have suffered complete loss of his earning capacity.
In a more recent decision in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and another, (2011) 1 SCC 343, this Court considered in great detail the correlation between the physical disability suffered in an accident and the loss of earning capacity resulting from it. In paragraphs 10, 11 and 13 of the judgment in Raj Kumar, this Court made the following observations:
Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation.
What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of MACT No. 123/21 11/19 Vinay kumar Rangan vs. Akash Kumar and ors.
dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation.
22. Also, in a very recent judgment announced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Sri Anthony alias Anthony Swamy v. The Manging Director, K.S.R.T.C. on 10.06.2020. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the principles set out for grant of compensation in cases of permanent physical functional disability as mentioned above.
23. It was held in the case of "Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar & Ors. I (2012) ACC 1 (SC)" that in the context of loss of future earning, any physical disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with reference to the nature of work being performed by the person suffering the disability. This is the basic premise and once that is grasped, it clearly follows that the same injury or loss may affect two different persons in different ways. Take the case of a marginal farmer who does his cultivation work himself and ploughs his land with his own two hands, the loss of one of the legs to the marginal farmer would be the end of the road in so far his earning capacity is concerned. But in case of person engaged in some kind of desk work in an office, the loss of leg may not have same effect. The loss of a leg (or for that matter the loss of any limb) to any one is bound to have very traumatic effects on one's personal, family or social life but the loss of one of the legs to a person working in an office would not interfere with his work/earning MACT No. 123/21 12/19 Vinay kumar Rangan vs. Akash Kumar and ors.
capacity in the same degree as in the case of marginal farmer or a cycle rickshaw-puller. Reference was also made of the case "Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343".
24. In the present case, the petitioner was working as a gold testor and suffered 25% permanent disability in relation to his right lower limb in this accident. In such cases, the effect of permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured has to be assessed first and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings. Therefore, looking into the physical condition of the petitioner, the rule half of the disability percentage has to be taken as functional disability, therefore, I take his functional disability as 13% of the whole body. As per the PAN Card, the date of birth of the petitioner is 13.08.1959. The accident took place on 29.01.2021. Hence, he was 61 years of age at the time of accident. Taking a multiplier of '9', the future loss of income comes to Rs.15000/- x 12 x 9 x 13% = Rs.2,10,600/-. I therefore, award Rs.2,10,600/- to the petitioner towards Future Loss of Income on account of permanent disability.
Loss of Amenities :
25. Due to the permanent disability, the petitioner was not certainly able to participate in the normal activities of his daily life to pursue his talents, recreation interest, hobbies and evocations. The injuries would also have an effect on his social life. I therefore, award Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner towards loss of amenities.MACT No. 123/21 13/19
Vinay kumar Rangan vs. Akash Kumar and ors.
The total compensation of the petitioner hence comes out to be :
MEDICAL EXPENSES :Rs.8050/-
PAIN & SUFFERINGS &
ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :Rs.1,00,000/-
SPECIAL DIET, CONVEYANCE &
ATTENDANT :Rs. 40,000/-
LOSS OF INCOME :Rs. 90,000/-
FUTURE LOSS OF INCOME :Rs.2,10,600/-
LOSS OF AMENITIES : Rs. 50,000/-
==========
TOTAL :Rs.4,98,650/-
===========
RELIEF
26. In view of my findings on the issues, I award a sum of Rs.4,98,650/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand Six Hundred Fifty only) to petitioner Vinay Kumar Rangan as compensation along- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the DAR till its realization. Entire amount be released to the injured Vinay Kumar Rangan.
Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
27. In consonance to the idea by which part of the awarded amount is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit / savings account by Hon'ble high Court, respondent no. 3 are directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the petitioners with State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, against account of petitioner within a period of 30 days from today, failing which respondent no.3 shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed MACT No. 123/21 14/19 Vinay kumar Rangan vs. Akash Kumar and ors.
period).
28. The respondent no.3 are directed to credit the amount directly to the MACT account of State Bank of India, District Court, Saket branch. Details of the bank i.e. IFSC code etc. have been provided to the Ld. counsel for the respondent no.3.
29. 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 SOUTH SAKET COURT A/c 42706751873 IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir alongwith calculation of interest and to the Counsel for the petitioners.
30. MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP)
31. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the State Bank of India, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, is directed to keep the awarded amount in the "fixed deposit / saving account'' in the following manner :-
• The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the petitioner/claimant by Automatic Credit of interest of their saving bank account with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi. • Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to petitioner/claimant after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimants / petitioners to facilitate identity. • No cheque book be issued to petitioner/claimant without the permission of this Court.
• The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the MACT No. 123/21 15/19 Vinay kumar Rangan vs. Akash Kumar and ors.
petitioner/claimant alongwith the photocopy of the FDR's . • The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to petitioner/claimant at the end of the fixed deposit period. • No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court. • Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court. • On the request of petitioner/claimant, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience.
• Petitioner/claimant shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, New Delhi.
• The bank is also directed to get the nomination form filled by the claimant at the time of preparation of FDRs. • The bank is also directed to keep the money received from the respondents in an FDR in the name of the bank till the FDRs are prepared in the name of the claimant, so that the benefit of better interest may be given to the claimant for the said period. • The Manager, State Bank of India, District Court Saket branch is directed not to release any amount to the petitioner from this branch, unless ordered by the Tribunal in terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 and CM Applications No. 32859/2017, 41125-41127/2017 in Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. dated 09.03.2018. It is made clear that the amount including the maturity amount of the FDRs shall be released to the petitioner through RTGS/NEFT directly in the personal bank account of the petitioner of the bank nearest to his place of residence, the details of which have been given by the petitioner to the Tribunal and same details shall be given by them to the Manager SBI, District Court Saket branch.DIRECTIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT No. 3
• The Respondent no. 3 is directed to file the compliance report of its having deposited the awarded amount with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this Tribunal within a period of 30 days from today. • The Respondent no. 3 is directed to furnish a copy of this award alongwith the cheque of the awarded amount to the Manager of State MACT No. 123/21 16/19 Vinay kumar Rangan vs. Akash Kumar and ors.
Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, so as to facilitate the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch to have the identification of the claimant/petitioner in whose favour the award has been passed. • The Respondent no. 3 shall intimate the claimant/petitioner about its having deposited the cheque in favor of the claimant in terms of the award, at the address of the claimant mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate him to withdraw the same. • Copy of this award / judgment be given to the claimant who is directed to furnish the same to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch for necessary compliance after his having received the notice of the deposit of awarded amount by the respondent no. 3.
• The case is now fixed for compliance by the respondent no.3 for 18.07.2024.
FORM IV-B SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE Date of accident : 29.01.2021 Name of the injured : Vinay Kumar Rangan Age of the injured: 61 years Occupation of the injured : Private Income of the injured : Rs.15,000/-
Nature of injury : Grievous
Medical treatment
taken by the injured : Yes
Computation of Compensation
MACT No. 123/21 17/19
Vinay kumar Rangan vs. Akash Kumar and ors.
S. Heads Awarded by the
No. Claims Tribunal
1 Pecuniary Loss :
i Expenditure on treatment Rs.8,050/-
ii Expenditure on special diet, conveyance and Rs.40,000/-
attendant
iii Loss of earning capacity ---
iv Loss of Income Rs.90,000/-
v Any other loss which may require any special ----
treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life.
2 Non-Pecuniary Loss :
i Compensation for mental and physical shock ---
ii Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/-
iii Loss of amenities Rs.50,000/-
iv Dis-figuration and marriage prospects -----
v Loss of marriage prospects -----
vi Future loss of income Rs.2,10,600/-
3 Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity :
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and nature ---
of disability as permanent or temporary
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in ---
relation to disability
4 TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.4,98,650/-
5 INTEREST AWARDED 9%
6 Total amount of interest Rs.1,43,237/-
7 Total amount including interest Rs.6,41,887/-
8 Award amount released Rs.6,41,887/-
9 Award amount kept in FDRs --
10 Mode of disbursement of the award amount Entire amount be
to the claimant(s) released to the
petitioner
MACT No. 123/21 18/19
Vinay kumar Rangan vs. Akash Kumar and ors.
11 Next date for compliance of the award. 18.07.2024.
Pronounced in the open court
on 30th MAY, 2024
(SUDESH KUMAR-II)
Presiding Officer : MACT (S)
Saket Courts : New Delhi
MACT No. 123/21 19/19