Delhi District Court
Ravinder (I)(Fir64/17/Kotwali) vs Priya Dutt on 26 September, 2023
DLCT010125512017
Presented on : 29-08-2017
Registered on : 29-08-2017
Decided on : 26-09-2023
Duration : 06 Years
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF PRESIDING OFFICER-MACT-02,
(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI PRESIDED
OVER BY DR. PANKAJ SHARMA
MACT NO.867/17
SH.RAVINDER KUMAR@RAVINDER
S/o Sh. Hira Lal
R/o H.No. 713, Block Y,
Near 901 Bus Stand,
Mangol Puri, N-Block,
Saraswati Vihar, Delhi-110083. .......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. SMT. PRIYA DUTT
W/o Sh. Sudhanshu Sinha
R/o H.No. 102, Bhai Parmanand Colony,
Kingsway Camp, Delhi-110009.(Driver).
2. SH. SUDHANSHU SINHA
S/o Late Sunil Kumar Sinha
R/o H.No. 102, Bhai Parmanand Colony,
Kingsway Camp, Delhi-110009. (Owner).
.....Respondents
The particulars as per Form-XVII, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) are as under:-
1. Date of the accident 18.04.2017
2. Date of filing of Form-I - First Accident N.A. MACT No. 867/17 Ravinder Kumar@Ravinder Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 1/25 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.09.27 10:08:38 +0530 Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the victim(s) N.A.
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Driver N.A.
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Owner N.A.
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim Accident N.A. Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form-VIB N.A. from the Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - Detailed Accident 29.08.2017 Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on NA the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer NA by the Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the NA Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on NA the part of the Designated officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the petitioner(s) to the offer NA of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 26.09.2023
15. Whether the petitioner (s) was/were directed to Yes open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) was/were 11.10.2022 MACT No. 867/17 Ravinder Kumar@Ravinder Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 2/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2023.09.27 10:08:46 +0530 directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar 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.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) produced the 27.07.2023 passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of the H.No. 102, Bhai Claimant(s).
Parmanand Colony, Kingsway Camp, Delhi-
110009
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank YES account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the Yes time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
AWARD/JUDGMENT FACTUAL POSITION AND PLEADINGS
1. This DAR was filed on 29.08.2017 by the Investigating Officer in the presence of the parties. The DAR is related to a motor vehicular accident dated 18.04.2017 in which one Sh. Ravinder Kumar @ Ravinder S/o Sh. Hira Lal MACT No. 867/17 Ravinder Kumar@Ravinder Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 3/25 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.09.27 10:09:04 +0530 (hereinafter referred to as "petitioner") sustained grievous injuries. Subsequent to the filing of said DAR, the present petition was filed on 07.02.2020 U/s 166 r/w Section 140 of M.V. Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,00,000/- in respect of injuries sustained by petitioner in a road traffic accident which took place on 18.04.2017 at about 07.15 PM at a spot Outer Ring Road towards Monkey Bridge Ring road Side falling within the jurisdiction of PS Kotwali. As per this petition, at the relevant time the petitioner was going on his motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-12SA-9487 at a normal speed and on his correct portion of the road with observing the traffic rules. He further stated that he was going towards his residence from Deepak Memorial Hospital after receiving illness news of his father-in-law alongwith his wife and daughter who were sitting on the pillion seat of the motorcycle and when they reached at Y- Point Seelam Garh behind Red Fort and took turn from Outer Ring Road towards Monkey Bridge Ring Road side suddenly a WagonR Car bearing registration no. DL-9CM-6193 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") which was being driven by its driver/ R-1 at a very high speed, rashly and negligently without blowing any horn in contravention of the traffic rules came from Shanti Van Ring Road side and hit motorcycle alongwith petitioner and his wife and daughter with a great force. As a result of this forceful impact petition alongwith motorcycle and his wife and daughter fell down on the road and sustained grievous multiple injuries all parts of their body. It is further stated that after the accident petitioner alongwith his wife and daughter were removed to Sushruta Trauma Centre, 9, Metcalf MACT No. 867/17 Ravinder Kumar@Ravinder Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 4/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.09.27 10:09:11 +0530 Road, Delhi from the accident place where the concerned doctor prepared the MLC of the petitioner and his wife and daughter and diagnosed to the petitioner and his wife and daughter. It is further stated that after the discharge from the said hospital the petitioner was continuously OPD patient in the various hospital. An FIR No. 64/17 PS Kotwali U/s 279/337/338 IPC was registered by the police. As per petition, the petitioner was 40 years old at the time of accident and was Government Teacher and was earning Rs. 35,000/- per month. R-1 is the driver of the offending vehicle and R-2 is the owner of the offending vehicle.
2. Joint written statement was filed by R-1 and R-2 wherein it is stated that the offending vehicle has been falsely implicated by the police as no accident, as alleged in the petition, ever took place. On merits, the contents of petition have been denied in toto.
ISSUES
3. Vide order dated 04.10.2018, the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal :-
1. Whether the petitioner Sh. Ravinder suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 18/04/2017 at about 07.15 P.M. involving Car bearing registration No. DL-9CM-6193 driven by the Respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently and owned by the Respondent No.2?OPP.MACT No. 867/17 Ravinder Kumar@Ravinder Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 5/25 Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.09.27 10:09:16 +0530
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
EVIDENCE 3.1 The petitioner examined himself as PW-1 in support of his claim. The petitioner filed affidavit Ex. PW1/A wherein he described the occurrence of incident in line with the facts mentioned in Para 1 of this award. He deposed that he sustained grievous injuries at the relevant time. He further deposed that at the relevant time, he was 40 years old and a Government teacher and was earning Rs.35,000/-. He further deposed that he has spent Rs.3,134/- on medical treatment, Rs. 80,000/- on special diet, Rs. 50,000/- on conveyance and Rs. 30,000/- on attendant. He further deposed that due to injuries he has not been able to do his work four months due to the said accident. Petitioner has relied upon the following documents viz:-
''Ex. PW1/1 (Colly) Original discharge summary and OPD Cards/ medical records;
Ex. PW1/2 (Colly) are original medical bills;
Ex. PW1/3 (OSR) is photocopy of Aadhar Card of PW-1;
Ex. PW1/4 (OSR) is photocopy of DL of PW-1;
Ex.PW1/5 (Colly) are photocopies of
qualifications documents
MACT No. 867/17 Ravinder Kumar@Ravinder Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 6/25
PANKAJ Digitally signed by
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2023.09.27
10:09:22 +0530
Ex. PW1/6 is DAR (Colly);
3.2 He was cross-examined by both the respondents. In
his cross-examination he deposed that he is doing a teacher job in Primary School, Kishan Pur, Sikandarabad, UP. He further deposed that on 18/04/2017, he came from Deepak Memorial Hospital, Preet Vihar, Delhi alongwith his wife and his daughter aged around 05 years after looking after his father-in-law who was in ICU and when he reached at Y Point, Salim Garh behind Red Fort. He denied the suggestion that the alleged incident occurred due to the disbalance of motorcycle because three persons were sitting on the motorcycle which is against the traffic rules. He further denied the suggestion that the accident took place due to his negligence because three persons were sitting on the motorcycle which is against the traffic rules and it disbalanced his motorcycle. He further deposed that so many public persons gathered on the alleged accident but noone was made witness to the accident. He further deposed that his statement was recorded by the police in Trauma Centre. He further deposed that he was discharged alongwith his wife and daughter from Sushruta Trauma Centre after treatment between 10-11 P.M. After that no statement was recorded by the police except aforementioned statement. He further deposed that after getting treatment from Sushruta Trauma Centre, he was advised to come next day for further treatment but he did not go there for further treatment. He further deposed that due to his own circumstances, he could not go there for further treatment. He further deposed that he was advised by Dr. Ashuthosh, Jeevan Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi to take bed rest for 04 months. He MACT No. 867/17 Ravinder Kumar@Ravinder Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 7/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.09.27 10:09:28 +0530 further deposed that he had informed to his employer about his accident telephonically. He denied the suggestion that the accident was caused due to his own negligence or that the respondents had helped him. He further deposed that some unknown persons in a car helped us and took thme to Sushruta Trauma Centre. He further denied the suggestion that the claim filed by his is bogus and false or that he was negligent. He further denied the suggestion that the vehicle belonging to the Respondents No. 1 & 2 was never met in the alleged accident.
4. PE was closed by petitioner on 23.06.2022
5. Respondents did not lead any evidence in support of their defence.
ARGUMENTS AND FINDINGS
6. Oral submissions were advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties.
7. I have perused the record and my issue wise findings is as under:-
ISSUE NO.1 ''Whether the petitioner Sh. Ravinder suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 18/04/2017 at about 07.15 P.M. involving Car bearing registration No. DL-9CM-6193 driven by the Respondent No. 1 rashly and MACT No. 867/17 Ravinder Kumar@Ravinder Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 8/25 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.09.27 10:09:34 +0530 negligently and owned by the Respondent No.2?OPP.''.
8. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case.
Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
9. As already discussed above, the father of petitioner examined himself as PW-1 in order to prove the factual averments regarding the occurrence of accident. PW-1 has clearly and categorically stated that at the relevant date, time and place, he sustained grievous injuries. He further deposed that at the relevant time, he was 40 years old and was government teacher and was earning Rs.35,000/- and due to injuries he has MACT No. 867/17 Ravinder Kumar@Ravinder Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 9/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.09.27 10:09:39 +0530 not been able to do his work four months due to the said accident. He categorically stated that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of R-1.The petitioner claims compensation on account of special pecuniary damage relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicine, transportation, diet, loss of earning during the period, he was injured, loss of earning during the period of treatment, loss of future earning on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, non-pecuniary damages, damages for pain suffering and trauma, loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life. PW-1 was cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for both the respondents. There is nothing on record which betrays any falsity or untruth in the oral testimony of PW-1. As such, it could be safely held that the oral testimony of PW-1 is reliable and trustworthy.
10. The very fact that R-1 has already been chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279/337/338 IPC & 146/196 M.V.Act in the above criminal case/FIR in itself is a strong circumstance to support the above oral testimony of PW1 and the case of petitioner on this issue. The copies of FIR, Chargesheet, Site plan, Mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle, MLC, Seizure Memos and Arrest Memo of R-1 also corroborate the testimony of PW1.
11. Besides the above, R-1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the depositions being made by PW1 regarding the above accident and its manner etc., but he has not done so. Therefore, an MACT No. 867/17 Ravinder Kumar@Ravinder Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 10/25 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.09.27 10:09:45 +0530 adverse inference on this aspect is also required to be drawn against the respondents in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.7
12. In view of the above, it could be safely assumed that at the relevant time, R-1 was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner in a high speed while the petitioner was going on motorcycle and hit his motorcycle at the relevant time. In the absence of any averment or evidence regarding any mechanical defect in the offending vehicle or any material depicting any negligent/sudden act or omission on the part of the petitioner, the only inference possible in the given facts and circumstances is that of neglect and default on the part of R-1 in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is constrained to hold R-1 guilty of gross negligence and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time.
13. In view of the medical treatment documents placed on record by the petitioner, no dispute is left regarding the nature of injuries sustained by him in the above accident.
14. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal holds that the petitioner suffered grievous injuries on his person on account of negligence and default of R-1 while driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. This issue thus stands decided against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner.
MACT No. 867/17 Ravinder Kumar@Ravinder Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 11/25 Digitally signedPANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.09.27 10:09:50 +0530 ISSUE NO. 2 "Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
15. As the issue no.1 has been proved in affirmative and in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner has become entitled to be compensated for the injuries suffered in the above accident, but the computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided.
16. In terms of provisions contained in Section 168 of the MV Act the compensation which is to be awarded by this tribunal is required to be 'just'. In the injury cases a claimant is entitled to two different kinds of compensations i.e. Pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary damages. The "pecuniary damages" or special damages are those damages which are awarded and designed to make good the losses which are capable of being calculated in terms of money and the object of awarding these damages is to indemnify the claimant for the expenses which he had already incurred or is likely to incur in respect of the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The "non-pecuniary" or general damages are those damages which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. The pecuniary or special damages generally include the expenses incurred by the claimant towards his treatment, special diet, conveyance, cost of nursing/ attendant, loss of income/earning capacity etc. and the non- pecuniary damages generally include the compensation for the MACT No. 867/17 Ravinder Kumar@Ravinder Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 12/25 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.09.27 10:09:55 +0530 mental or physical shock, pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, marriage prospects and disfiguration etc. The above categories falling under both the heads of compensation are not exhaustive in nature but only illustrative. It is also necessary to state here that no amount of money or compensation can put the injured/claimant exactly in the same position or place where he was before the accident and an effort is to be made only to reasonably compensate him or to put him almost in the same place or position where he could have been if the alleged accident had not taken place and this compensation is to be assessed in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The object of compensating him is also not to reward him or to make him rich in an unjust manner. It is also well settled that the 'just' compensation to be awarded to the claimant has to be calculated objectively and it may involve some guess work in calculating the different amounts which the claimant may be entitled under the different heads of compensation. Further, in case of permanent disability, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earning, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. Reference in this regard can be made on some of important judgments on the subject like the judgment in the case of R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 755, Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2010) 10 SCC 254 and Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343.
MACT No. 867/17 Ravinder Kumar@Ravinder Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 13/25 Digitally signed byPANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.09.27 10:10:01 +0530
17. In light of the above legal propositions, the amount of compensation which can be considered to be 'just' in the opinion of this tribunal shall be as under:-
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses
18. The petitioner has placed on judicial file his medical papers and medical bills, which are Ex. PW1/1 (Colly) & Ex.PW1/2 (Colly). As per the medical bills Ex.PW1/2 (Colly), the petitioner has incurred expenses to the tune of Rs.3,134/-. In the absence of any contest to the said documents (placed on record by the petitioner), the petitioner is held entitled to an amount of Rs.3,134/- under this head.
(ii) Pain and Suffering
19. As per medical documents, the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries It is not possible to quantify the compensation admissible to petitioner for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which he actually suffered because of the above injuries, but as stated above, an effort has to be made to compensate him for the same in a just and reasonable manner. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the injuries suffered by petitioner and duration of the treatment taken by him etc., an amount of Rs.25,000/- is being awarded to him towards pain and sufferings during the said period of his treatment and immobility. Thus, she is awarded a total amount of Rs. 25,000/- under this head.
MACT No. 867/17 Ravinder Kumar@Ravinder Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 14/25 Digitally signed byPANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.09.27 10:10:07 +0530
(iii) Loss of actual earnings
20. In his affidavit Ex. PW1/A, the petitioner claims that he was doing a government Job at the time of accident. As such, he has not suffered any income loss. Hence, nothing is awarded to petitioner under this head.
(iv) Conveyance, Attendant Charges and Special Diet
21. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the extent of permanent physical disability and the extended period of medical treatment, the petitioner is granted a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each under these heads.
(v) Loss of amenities of life
22. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and the extended period of medical treatment, the petitioner is granted a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each under these heads.
Issue No.3/Relief
23. The petitioner is thus entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,28,134/- ( Rupees One Lakh Twenty Eight Thousand One Hundred Thirty Four Only) (Rs. 3,134/- + Rs. 25,000/- + Rs.25,000/- + Rs. 25,000/- + Rs.25,000/- + Rs.25,000/-) along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR i.e. 29.08.2017. Since no interim compensation has been awarded, therefore no deduction is applicable.
MACT No. 867/17 Ravinder Kumar@Ravinder Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 15/25 Digitally signedPANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.09.27 10:10:12 +0530 RELEASE
24. On 27.07.2023 statement of petitioner qua financial needs and requirements was recorded in terms of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 32 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. As per his statement, his household expenditure is Rs.40,000/- per month. Photocopy of the passbook of the bank account of the petitioner maintained with State Bank of India, Branch Mangol Puri, Delhi was also placed on record at that time. Photocopies of Aadhar Card and PAN Card were also placed on record by the injured, apart from two coloured photographs of the petitioner.
25. Out of the awarded amount, a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs Sixty Thousand Only) is directed to be kept with State Bank of India, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in MACAD in the form of 08 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 08 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 35, 36 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in his savings/MACT Claims Bank Account bearing No. 416484384465 IFSC Code - SBIN0004841 (PAN NO. AWAPK0120D) maintained with SBI, Branch - Mangol Puri, Delhi on monthly basis. The remaining MACT No. 867/17 Ravinder Kumar@Ravinder Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 16/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.09.27 10:10:19 +0530 amount of Rs.29,638/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Eight Only) is also directed to be released into his above said account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the petitioner.
26. The Bank(s) shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the petitioner(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the petitioner(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s). The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the SBI, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by the bank to the petitioner(s). The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credit by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the petitioner(s) near the place of their residence. No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of this Tribunal.
LIABILITY
27. R-1 being the driver and principal tortfeasor and R- 2 being owner of the said vehicle, and also being vicariously liable for the acts of R-1, are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to petitioner. R-1 & R-2 are directed to deposit the above award amount within 30 days from the date of this Award by way of NEFT or RTGS mode in the account of this Tribunal maintained with SBI, Tis Hazari MACT No. 867/17 Ravinder Kumar@Ravinder Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 17/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.09.27 10:10:24 +0530 Courts, Delhi (account holder's name-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 02 Central, A/C No. 40743576901, IFSC Code SBIN0000726) under intimation to the petitioner/ injured and this Tribunal in terms of the format for remittance of compensation as provided in Divisional Manager Vs. Rajesh, 2016 SCC Online Mad. 1913 (and reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the orders dated 16.03.2021 and 16.11.2021 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt.
Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors) along with interest @ 9% per annum till the deposit of the compensation as awarded, failing which he shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
28. A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
29. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme MACT No. 867/17 Ravinder Kumar@Ravinder Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 18/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.09.27 10:10:30 +0530 Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
30. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 26.10.2023.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed
on this 26.09.2023 by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2023.09.27
(DR. PANKAJ SHARMA)
10:10:36 +0530
PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL)
DELHI
MACT No. 867/17 Ravinder Kumar@Ravinder Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 19/25
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2023.09.27
10:10:41 +0530
FORM - XVI, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE
1. Date of accident : 18.04.2017
2. Name of the injured : Ravinder Kumar @ Ravinder
3. Age of the injured : 46 years
4. Occupation of the injured : Government Job
5. Income of the injured : NIL
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by injured : Different Hospitals
8. Period of Hospitalization : NIL
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details : YES
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss MACT No. 867/17 Ravinder Kumar@Ravinder Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 20/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.09.27 10:10:46 +0530 (I) Expenditure on treatment Rs.3,134/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.25,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 25,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 25,000/-
(v) Cost of artificial limb NIL (vi) Loss of earning capacity NIL (vii) Loss of Income NIL
(viii) Any other loss which may NIL require any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental NIL
and physical shock
MACT No. 867/17 Ravinder Kumar@Ravinder Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 21/25
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2023.09.27
10:10:52 +0530
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 25,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.,25,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration NIL
(v) Loss of marriage prospects NIL
(vi) Loss of earning, N.A.
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 N.A
assessed and nature of
disability as permanent or
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N.A
expectation of life span on
account of disability
MACT No. 867/17 Ravinder Kumar@Ravinder Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 22/25
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2023.09.27
10:10:57 +0530
N.A.
(iii) Percentage of loss of
earning capacity in relation
to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - N.A.
(Income x% Earning
Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL Rs.1,28,134/-
COMPENSATION
15. INTEREST AWARDED 8% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the Rs.61,504/-
date of award
17. Total amount including Rs.1,89,638/-
interest
18. Award amount released Rs.29,638/-
19. Award amount kept in Rs.1,60,000/-
FDRs MACT No. 867/17 Ravinder Kumar@Ravinder Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 23/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2023.09.27 10:11:02 +0530
20. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award the award amount to the claimant(s).
21. Next date for compliance of 26.10.2023 the award.
MACT No. 867/17 Ravinder Kumar@Ravinder Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 24/25Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.09.27 10:11:09 +0530 CONCLUSION
1. As per award dated 26.09.2023.
2. A separate file is ordered to be prepared by the Nazir with directions to put up the same on 26.10.2023.Digitally signed by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2023.09.27
10:11:14 +0530
(DR. PANKAJ SHARMA)
PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL)
DELHI/26.09.2023
MACT No. 867/17 Ravinder Kumar@Ravinder Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 25/25
Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2023.09.27
10:11:19 +0530