Delhi District Court
Dar - Naresh Gupta vs Amit on 31 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF VIJAY KUMAR JHA
PRESIDING OFFICER:
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-01, SHAHDARA
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
____________________________________________________________
In the matters of:
(I) MACT no. 370/2018
Naresh Gupta v. Amit & Ors.
(II) MACT no.369/2018
Nasir v. Amit & Ors.
(I) MACT No. 370/2018
Naresh Gupta (Injured)
S/o Sh. Shiv Ram Gupta
R/o 2A/11, Geeta Colony, Delhi.
Mobile Phone no. 9871568837 ..................Petitioner
Versus
1. Amit @ Amit Sharan (Driver)
S/o Sh. Suraj Mal
R/o 202, Old Seema Puri, Delhi.
Mobile Phone no. 8010345000
2. Madan Kumar Chhoker (Regd. Owner)
S/o Sh. Zile Singh
R/o B-5/28, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi.
Mobile Phone no. 9718500001
3. Johar Hassan S/o Sh. Ali Mohd.
R/o 197, Village Sadarpur, PS Gharonda, District Karnal, Haryana.
Mobile Phone no. 9813135086
4. Deepak Verma S/o Sh. Ram Avtar Verma
R/o 1001/80, M.S. Park, Delhi.
Mobile Phone no. 9871592699 ...............Respondents
AND
______________________________________________________________________
MACT Nos. 370/2018 & 369/2018 Page 1 of 30
(II) MACT No. 370/2018
Nasir (Injured)
S/o Sh. Azaz Ahmed
R/o E-13/C-522, New Seelampur, Delhi.
Mobile Phone no. 9871382683 ..................Petitioner
Versus
1. Amit @ Amit Sharan (Driver)
S/o Sh. Sujaj Mal
R/o 202, Old Seema Puri, Delhi.
Mobile Phone no. 8010345000
2. Madan Kumar Chhoker (Regd. Owner)
S/o Sh. Zile Singh
R/o B-5/28, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi.
Mobile Phone no. 9718500001
3. Johar Hassan S/o Sh. Ali Mohd.
R/o 197, Village Sadarpur, PS Gharonda,
District Karnal, Haryana.
Mobile Phone no. 9813135086
4. Deepak Verma S/o Sh. Ram Avtar Sharma
R/o 1001/80, M.S. Park, Delhi.
Mobile Phone no. 9871592699 ...............Respondents
Date of institution : 04.06.2018
Final arguments concluded on : 30.01.2025
Date of Award : 31.01.2025
JUDGMENT
1. By this common judgment, I shall decide the two claim cases based on DARs (Detailed Accident Reports), filed by the Investigating Agency with respect to the injuries sustained by the claimants ______________________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. 370/2018 & 369/2018 Page 2 of 30 Naresh Gupta and Nasir in the same motor vehicular accident occurred within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The DARs filed so, have been treated as claim petitions under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on behalf of the claimants/ petitioners.
2. The important facts of the case as per DARs are that on 24.02.2018 at about 00:30 hours (night), Naresh Gupta (petitioner in MACT no.370/2018) was going from Geeta Colony to Dilshad Garden in his car (make-Mahindra TUV 300) bearing registration no. DL7CM-4614, being driven by his driver Nasir (petitioner in MACT no.369/2018) at normal speed and on the correct side of the road. When the petitioners reached at crossroad (Chauraha), near Hari Wardi Wala School, A-Pocket, Dilshad Garden, Delhi, in the meanwhile, a car (make-Endeavour) bearing registration no. DL3CAR-1018 (in short "offending vehicle"), being driven at a high speed and in rash and negligent manner, came from school side and hit at the middle of the right side of their vehicle. As a result of the impact, the petitioner Naresh Gupta sustained grievous injury as per his MLC prepared at GTB Hospital, Delhi, whereas, petitioner Nasir received simple injury as per his MLC prepared at Max Hospital, Patparganj, Delhi. In connection with the accident, FIR no.126/2018, under sections 279/337 IPC, was registered at PS Seemapuri, Delhi. During the investigation, it was found that at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1 Amit Sharan and it was found registered in the name of respondent no.2 Madan Kumar Chhoker and it was not insured. Respondent no.4 Deepak Verma at the time of the accident was the beneficial/ real/ ______________________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. 370/2018 & 369/2018 Page 3 of 30 possessory owner of the offending vehicle having purchase it from respondent no.3 Johar Hasan for a sum of Rs.4,60,000/-.
3. All the four respondents appeared at the time of filing of DAR and they were directed to file written-statements. However, written statement was filed only by respondent no.2.
4. In the written-statement filed by the respondent no.2, he stated that he was not the present owner of the offending vehicle as he had already sold the same to one Johar Hassan (respondent no.3) on 27.10.2011 vide sale documents, copies of which have been furnished to the Investigating Officer and therefore, he has no role whatsoever in the present case.
5. Respondent no.1, 3 and 4 failed to file their written-statement despite more than sufficient opportunities granted to them and therefore, their right to file written-statement was closed vide order dated 07.09.2018.
6. Vide order dated 07.09.2018, following issues were framed:
MACT no. 370/2018 (In re: Injured Naresh Gupta)
i) Whether the respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle no. DL3CAR-1018 on 24.02.2018 at about 12:30 a.m., near crossing Hari Wardi Wala School, Pocket-A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi in rash and negligent manner and caused injuries to petitioner Naresh Gupta? OPP
ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP
iii) Relief.
______________________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. 370/2018 & 369/2018 Page 4 of 30 MACT no. MACT no. 369/2018 (In re: Injured Nasir)
i) Whether the respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle no. DL3CAR-1018 on 24.02.2018 at about 12:30 a.m., near crossing Hari Wardi Wala School, Pocket-A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi in rash and negligent manner and caused injuries to petitioner Nasir? OPP
ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP
iii) Relief.
7. Both the claim cases, arising out of the same accident, were consolidated by my learned predecessor vide aforesaid order and it was directed that MACT no.370/20018 shall be treated as main case and common evidence in both the cases would be recorded and kept in the main case.
8. Accordingly, in order to establish their cases, the petitioners adduced evidence as under:
i) PW1 Naresh Gupta, the petitioner (in MACT no.370/2018) testified being injured in the accident. He deposed on the strength of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the following documents:
a) Copy of FIR no. 126/2018 as Ex.PW1/1.
b) His MLC, prepared at GTB Hospital, Delhi as Ex.PW1/2.
c) Site Plan as Ex.PW1/3.
d) Income Tax Return filed by him as Ex.PW1/4 (colly).
e) His medical treatment record as Ex.PW1/5 (colly).
f) His medical Bills as Ex.PW1/6 (colly).
g) His Aadhaar Card as Ex.PW1/7.
h) His Disability Certificate as Ex.PW1/8.
______________________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. 370/2018 & 369/2018 Page 5 of 30
ii) PW2 Nasir, the petitioner (in MACT no.369/2018) testified on the strength of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A1 and relied upon the following documents:
a) FIR no. 126/2018 as Ex.PW2/1.
b) His MLC prepared at Max Hospital as Ex.PW2/2.
c) MLC of Naresh Gupta, prepared at GTB Hospital as Ex.PW2/3.
d) Site Plan as Ex.PW2/4.
e) His Aadhaar Card as Ex.PW2/5.
9. Petitioners' evidence was closed vide order dated 13.02.2024 on the statement of learned counsel for the petitioners. Despite number of opportunities, respondents failed to lead any evidence and therefore, respondents' evidence was closed vide order dated 26.07.2024.
10. I have heard the final arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire evidence and other materials placed on record. My findings on the issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1 (in both the cases):
11. Issue no.1, being interlinked in both the cases, shall be decided here together by my common findings.
12. It is the settled proposition of law that in an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non. However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of the preponderance of probabilities. A holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition ______________________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. 370/2018 & 369/2018 Page 6 of 30 based upon negligence. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. Reference may be made to the judgments titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sakshi Bhutani & Others., MAC APP. No. 550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012, Bimla Devi & Others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Others (2009) 13 SC 530, Parmeshwari v. Amirchand & Others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 & Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Others 2018, Law Suit (SC) 303.
13. On this issue, testimonies of both the petitioners namely Naresh Gupta and Nasir, who sustained injuries in the accident are most relevant to be discussed here.
14. Since PW1 Naresh Gupta during his cross-examination admitted that he does not know as to how the accident took place, his deposition, if any, with respect to the manner of the accident, cannot be taken into consideration. Now coming to the deposition of PW2 Nasir, it may be observed that he has given complete details as to the manner of the accident. PW2 stated that on 24.02.2018 at about 12:30 a.m. (mid night), he, along with Naresh Gupta, was going from Geeta Colony to GTB Enclave by car bearing no. DL7CM-4614 (make-Mahindra TUV 300), which was being driven by him at normal speed and on the correct side of the road. PW2 further deposed that when they reached near Green Wardi Wala School (sic), a car (make- Endeavour) bearing registration no. DL3CAR-1018, being driven at a high speed and in rash and negligent manner, came from school side and hit the middle of the right side of their vehicle. PW2 ______________________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. 370/2018 & 369/2018 Page 7 of 30 deposed that, due to the accident, Naresh Gupta sustained fractures on his lower back and lower limb. Public person took Naresh Gupta to GTB Hospital, where his MLC was prepared vide MLC no. B-710/16, dated 24.02.2018 and thereafter, family members of Naresh Gupta got him shifted to Max Hospital at around 03:00 a.m. PW2 stated that he also received minor injuries in the accident and he was medically examined by the doctors at Max Hospital vide MLC no. 7533, dated 24.02.2018. In support of his deposition, PW2 proved on record FIR no.126/2018 as Ex.PW2/1, his MLC prepared at Max Hospital as Ex.PW2/ and MLC of Naresh Gupta, prepared at GTB Hospital as Ex.PW2/3. PW2 categorically stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle.
15. During cross-examination conducted by learned counsel for the respondent no.2, PW2 affirmed that the accident took place on 23.02.2018 at about 12:30 a.m. He stated that at the time of the accident, he was driving the car of Naresh Gupta and they were coming from Geeta Colony. When he was asked about the registration number of the offending vehicle, he fairly stated that the accident took place with the vehicle bearing no. DL3C-1018. Here, it may be noted that though the registration number, as told by PW2, was part registration number of the offending vehicle but still whatever alpha-numerals uttered by the witness were exactly the same as that of the offending vehicle. Moreover, the offending vehicle was seized by the police in accidental condition from the spot of the accident itself and therefore, the question to disputing the ______________________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. 370/2018 & 369/2018 Page 8 of 30 involvement of the offending vehicle does not arise at all.
16. It may be observed that from the entire cross-examination of PW2, nothing could come on record which may raise doubt regarding rash and negligent act of the respondent no.1 and testimony of PW2 on this aspect remained intact and could not be shattered in any manner and therefore, the same has to be accepted on its face value itself. Nothing else is available on record, which may suggest any falsity in the oral testimony of the petitioner Nasir.
17. Further, the aforementioned ocular testimony of the witness is also found corroborated by documentary evidence brought on record by way of DAR, comprising of FIR, Site Plan of the place of accident, arrest memo of the driver/ respondent no.1, seizure memo of the offending vehicle mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle and that of the vehicle of victims and chargesheet, etc. Besides, both the petitioners have also placed on record their MLCs which clearly show the alleged history of RTA (Road Traffic Accident).
18. Furthermore, there is no challenge from the respondent no.1/ driver of the offending vehicle to the version of the petitioners. The respondent no.1 had appeared before this Tribunal at the time of the filing of the DAR but thereafter, he stopped appearing, nor he filed any written statement taking any defence. From respondents' side, the driver/ respondent no.1 was the best witness, who could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the testimony of the petitioners regarding the above accident and its manner but the ______________________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. 370/2018 & 369/2018 Page 9 of 30 respondent no.1 did not enter into the witness box during the course of the inquiry might be because of his death. Thus, in that case too, 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 the offending vehicle by respondent no.1.
19. It is not disputed that respondent no.1 was charge-sheeted in the criminal case by the police after detailed investigation and in a motor vehicle accident claim case, the contents of charge sheet support the version of petitioner regarding rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1.
20. Besides the above, the MLC and treatment record of the petitioners make it clear that petitioner/ injured Naresh Gupta received grievous injury and petitioner/ injured Nasir received simple injury in the accident.
21. Thus, this Tribunal is of the opinion that petitioners have been able to prove on the basis of the preponderance of probabilities that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1 and that resulted into grievous injuries to the petitioner Naresh Gupta and simple injury to petitioner Nasir. Issue no.1 in both the cases is, accordingly, decided in favour of petitioner(s).
ISSUE NO. 222. In view of the finding on issue no.1, petitioners are entitled to get compensation, however, the quantum of compensation still needs to ______________________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. 370/2018 & 369/2018 Page 10 of 30 be adjudicated. Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 enjoins the claim Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation, which appears to be just and reasonable. As per settled law, compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be pittances. A man is not compensated for the physical injury, he is compensated for the loss, which he suffers as a result of that injury (Baker v. Willoughby (1970) AC 467, page 492 per Lord Reid).
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
23. The present claim cases pertain to injury and scope of compensation in injury cases has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Mr. R.D. Hattangadi v. M/S Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 AIR 755. The relevant extract is as under:
"Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which is capable of being calculated in terms of money-, whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may, include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit upto the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non- pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the ______________________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. 370/2018 & 369/2018 Page 11 of 30 person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, discomfort, disappointment, hardship, frustration and mental stress in life."
24. Further, in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & another (2011) 1 SCC 343, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India laid down general principles for computation of compensation in injury cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced as under:
"4. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act", for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned.
5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary Damages (special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
______________________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. 370/2018 & 369/2018 Page 12 of 30
(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 to 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).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii) (b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life."
In the light of the aforementioned judgments, the compensation to which the petitioners in both the cases are entitled shall be as under:-
MACT no. 370/2018Naresh Gupta v. Amit & Ors.
(In Re: injured Naresh Gupta) PECUNIARY DAMAGES :
Medical Expenses
25. PW1, the petitioner placed on record photocopies of medical bills Ex.PW1/6 (colly). During final arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner filed a summary of bills showing the date and amount of ______________________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. 370/2018 & 369/2018 Page 13 of 30 respective bills from serial no.1 to 130, for a total sum of Rs.5,96,708/-. The summary so filed has been compared with the bills which have been placed on record as Ex.PW1/6 (colly) and only the bills at serials no.1 to 78 are actually found on record, out of which the bills mentioned at serials no.49, 55 to 57 are not on record. Further, with respect to bill of Rs.8,000/- mentioned at serial no. 31, the record shows that only Rs.4,000/- was paid against said bill and the rest amount is shown as balance. On perusal of Inpatient Bill of Rs.21,600/- which is mentioned at serial no. 64 in the Summary of Bills, it seen that said bill was paid vide payment receipts of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.11,600/- which have also been mentioned at serial numbers 62 and 63, respectively in addition to serial no.64 for Rs.21,600/- and therefore, out of these three, only amount mentioned at serial no.64 for Rs.21,600/- shall only be taken into consideration. Accordingly, the total amount of the medical bills that are actually filed on record comes to Rs.3,05,601/- and this amount is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Loss of Earning During Treatment
26. The MLC Ex.PW/2 shows that immediately after the accident on 24.02.2018, the petitioner was taken to GTB Hospital, Shahdara, Delhi, where his MLC was prepared. The medical treatment record Ex.PW1/5 (colly) shows that the petitioner was shifted to Max Hospital, Patparganj, where he remained hospitalized from 24.02.2018 to 05.03.2018 in Max Hospital, Patparganj, Delhi and from 29.09.2018 to 30.09.2018 in Monga Medical Centre, Krishan Nagar, Delhi. He was diagnosed to have suffered 'fracture ______________________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. 370/2018 & 369/2018 Page 14 of 30 dislocation D2/ D3 with paraplegia'. It is also evident that even after completion of treatment, the injuries suffered by him have resulted into 80% permanent locomotor impairment in relation to the whole body as per disability certificate Ex.PW1/8. Thus, in view of this Tribunal, considering the nature of injury and treatment record, the petitioner is entitled to be compensated for the loss of seven months' income during treatment.
27. The petitioner (PW1) has placed on record copy of ITRs of the assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 and proved the same as Ex.PW1/4 (colly). It is evident that during cross- examination of the petitioner, the ITRs filed by him have not been challenged on any material ground and merely a suggestion has been given to the petitioner that the ITRs filed by him are false and fabricated, which suggestion has been promptly denied by the petitioner. Therefore, the ITRs filed by the petitioner are required to be considered to arrive at his income. The last ITR of the assessment year 2017-18 shows the petitioner's gross total income as Rs.2,63,744/- and tax payable is shown as zero and thus, monthly income of the petitioner is assessed as Rs.21,978.66/-. Accordingly, petitioner is awarded a compensation of Rs.1,53,851 (Rs.21,978.66 x
7) on account of loss of seven months' income during treatment.
Loss of Future Earnings Due to Disability
28. PW3 Dr. Vikramjeet Singh, Senior Resident, Department of Orthopaedics, GTB Hospital has proved the Disability Certificate of the petitioner as Ex.PW1/8, as per which the petitioner has suffered ______________________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. 370/2018 & 369/2018 Page 15 of 30 80% permanent locomotor impairment in relation to the whole body. PW3 (Doctor) also proved the assessment sheet as Ex.PW3/A (colly) with respect to the assessment of the disability.
29. The disablement and loss of earning capacity are two different aspects and not substitute for each other and the loss of income has to be seen considering the profession in which the petitioner was engaged at the time of the accident. Petitioner in his cross- examination has stated that at the time of the accident, he was working as property dealer. In this regard, now it is required to be seen that up to what extent the aforesaid disability would impact the petitioner's earnings as a property dealer.
30. In the instant case, PW3 (Doctor) has opined that petitioner, with the nature of disability he suffered, he would not be able to stand and walk, which will affect his daily activities, as the muscle power at the hip, knee and ankle joint are nil. Considering these restrictions, it can be safely assumed that the petitioner would not be able to continue his work of property dealer, which requires mobility, climbing stairs, walking and standing, etc., while showing properties/ flats on different floors, etc. to the customers. In these circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion that functional disability in relation to the whole body of the petitioner may be considered to be 80% for the purpose of assessing corresponding loss of his future income.
31. Further, the law is well settled that there should be no departure from the multiplier method in injury cases also [refer: Sandeep Khanuja vs. Atul Dande & Anr., (2017) 3 SCC 351]. The Aadhaar Card ______________________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. 370/2018 & 369/2018 Page 16 of 30 (Ex.PW1/7) of the petitioner reveals his year of birth as 1973, which would mean that he was 45 years of age on the date of accident (24.02.2018) and thus, a multiplier of 14 as applicable to age group between 41-45 years would be applicable as per settled principle laid down in case of Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121. Moreover, the law has been well settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Sandeep Khanuja (supra) and Erudhaya Priya vs. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601, that while applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are also to be taken into consideration. Thus, considering the petitioner a self-employed who belonged to the age group between 40 and 50 years, an addition of income to the extent of 25% towards future prospects has to be counted (refer: National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., AIR 2017 SC 5157).
32. As discussed above, the income of the petitioner has been assessed as Rs.2,63,744/- per annum. Thus, applying the multiplier of 14 and future prospects @ 25% with 80% loss of income on account of whole-body functional disability, the total loss of future income would come to Rs.36,92,416/- [80% of (2,63,744x125/100x14] and the same is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Special Diet & Conveyance Charges
33. Admittedly, the petitioner (PW1) has not led any documentary evidence with respect to the expenses incurred on Special Diet and Conveyance Charges, however, on perusal of treatment record ______________________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. 370/2018 & 369/2018 Page 17 of 30 Ex.PW1/5 (colly), it is seen the petitioner remained hospitalized on two occasions, i.e. from 24.02.2018 to 05.03.2018 and then from 29.09.2018 to 30.09.2018 and during each hospitalization he had to undergo surgery. Though it has not been brought on record as to when the treatment of petitioner completed, however, as discussed above under the head of 'loss of income during treatment', the petitioner has been assumed to remain under further treatment for about seven months. Thus, considering the nature of the injury and the period of treatment, it may be safely assumed that the petitioner must have spent a reasonable amount on high-rich protein diet for early recovery after surgery apart from spending money on transportation for visiting the hospital for his further treatment and therefore, a sum of Rs.50,000/- each is granted to the petitioner for special diet and conveyance charges. Accordingly, a total sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded under this head.
Attendant Charges
34. Though no documentary evidence has been led regarding hiring professional attendants during treatment or thereafter, it cannot be ignored that, in view of the nature of the injury sustained by the petitioner, his family members would have to render their services to provide assistance to the petitioner in his routine activities and due to that, their work/ job would definitely have suffered. For claiming compensation, the necessity of employing a professional attendant/ care taker is not required and the petitioner should be compensated for the value of the services of the family members, which has been or would be necessitated by the wrong doing of the driver. (Refer :
______________________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. 370/2018 & 369/2018 Page 18 of 30 DTC & Ors Vs. Lalita, 1983 ACJ 253). Accordingly, the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- under this head.
NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
Mental & Physical Shock/ Pain & Sufferings
35. Perusal of record shows that after the accident on 24.02.2018, the petitioner was taken to GTB Hospital, Delhi, where his MLC was prepared. The MLC (Ex.PW1/2) shows that on local examination, the petitioner was observed to have tenderness over lower back region with restricted movement of both lower limbs. Thereafter, the petitioner was shifted to Max Hospital, Patparganj, where he was observed to have suffered with "muscle trauma, multiple spinous process fractures with fracture dislocation of D2 D3 vertebrae with cord compression, dural tear, cord pulsations after anterior and posterior decompression". To treat the injuries, he was operated upon on 25.02.2018 when dorsal decompression and fixation were done. He remained hospitalized for about 10 days. Again, he remained admitted in hospital from 29.09.2018 to 30.09.2018 and during said hospitalization also, he underwent surgery. Thus, it is clear that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the petitioner/ injured must have gone through immense pain and suffering during his treatment and, therefore, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Loss of Amenities
36. It cannot be ignored that even after completion of treatment, petitioner was assessed to have suffered 80% permanent locomotor impairment in relation to the whole body, which has been assessed ______________________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. 370/2018 & 369/2018 Page 19 of 30 by this Tribunal as 80% functional physical disability in relation to the whole body. It cannot be ignored that with the aforementioned disability, petitioner is bound to face difficulties throughout his life and will not be able to enjoy the amenities of life to the fullest. Hence, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
37. Thus, the compensation awarded to the petitioner is summarized as under:-
Sl. No. Head of compensation Amount
1. Medical Bills Rs.3,05,601/-
2. Special Diet & Conveyance Charges Rs.1,00,000/-
3. Attendant Charges Rs.50,000/-
4. Loss of Earnings (During Treatment) Rs.1,53,851/-
5. Loss of Future Income (Due to Disability) Rs.36,92,416/-
6. Pain & Sufferings Rs.50,000/-
7. Loss of Amenities Rs.50,000/-
Total Rs.44,01,868/-
Thus, a the compensation in this case comes to Rs.44,01,868/-, rounded off to Rs.44,02,000/-.
MACT no. 369/2018Nasir v. Amit & Ors.
(In Re: injured Nasir)
38. The petitioner/ injured Nasir (PW2) by way of his affidavit Ex.PW2/A deposed to have spent Rs.25,000/- on his medical treatment, special diet and conveyance charges. Perusal of record shows that he neither placed on record any medical bills with respect to the medical expenses incurred upon the treatment of his injuries nor he filed any documents to show the money spent for special diet ______________________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. 370/2018 & 369/2018 Page 20 of 30 and conveyance charges. The petitioner has relied upon the copy of FIR no. 126/2018 as Ex.PW2/1; his MLC as Ex.PW2/2; MLC of Naresh Gupta as Ex.PW2/3; Site Plan as Ex.PW2/4 and his Aadhaar Card as Ex.PW2/5. Said documents do not support at all the amount of compensation claimed by him by way of his affidavit of evidence.
39. The only document with respect to his treatment or medical examination is the MLC no.7533, dated 24.02.2018, prepared at Max Hospital. Perusal of the said MLC shows that on medical examination the petitioner was observed to have sustained knee and leg injury and the nature of the injury suffered by him was opined to be 'simple' in nature.
40. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the interest of justice would be served if the petitioner is awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.20,000/- for pain and suffering/ mental and physical shock. Accordingly, the petitioner in this case shall be entitled to a compensation of Rs.20,000/-.
INTEREST ON AWARD
41. Petitioner(s) in both the cases shall also be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of DARs till realization.
LIABILITY
42. As per DAR, which was filed by the Investigating Officer after completion of the present accident matter, the respondent no.2 ______________________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. 370/2018 & 369/2018 Page 21 of 30 Madan Kumar Chhoker was the registered owner of the offending vehicle i.e. the car (make-Endeavour) bearing registration number DL3CAR-1018. And the registered owner had already sold the offending vehicle prior to the accident to respondent no.3 Johar Hassan, who had further sold it to respondent no.4 Deepak Verma, who was the possessory owner of the offending vehicle on the date of the accident. Admittedly, the respondent no.4 Deepak Verma had produced the original Registration Certificate of the offending vehicle to the Investigating Officer and also produced the driver/ respondent no.1 Amit Sharan before the Investigating Officer.
43. Now, the question arises as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 19 of the judgment Vaibhav Jain v. Hindustan Motors Pvt. Ltd., MANU/SC/0968/2024:
19. What is clear from the decisions noticed above is that 'owner' of a vehicle is not limited to the categories specified in Section 2(30) of the M. V. Act. If the context so requires, even a person at whose command or control the vehicle is, could be treated as its owner for the purposes of fixing tortious liability for payment of compensation. In this light, we shall now examine whether at the time of accident the vehicle in question was under the command and control of the Appellant (i. e., the dealer).
44. Admittedly, the offending car was not insured at the time of the accident and therefore, the respondent no.1 Amit Sharan, being the driver of the offending car is the principal tortfeasor, whereas respondent no.2 Madan Kumar Chhoker, being registered owner and respondent no.4 Deepak Verma, being a possessory owner, would ______________________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. 370/2018 & 369/2018 Page 22 of 30 have the vicarious liability. As on the date of the accident, the respondent no.4 Deepak Verma was in command and control of the offending vehicle, therefore, it was his immediate duty to see that the offending vehicle was insured, at least for the third-party liability, which is statutorily required before giving the possession/ allowing the respondent no.1 to drive the same. Accordingly, the respondents no.1, 2 and 4 would be liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner and their liability shall be joint and several.
RELIEF
45. In the light of the decision on substantive issues framed, the present claim petitions based on DARs are allowed and the following awards are being passed:
AWARD MACT no. 370/2018 (In Re: injured Naresh Gupta)
46. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.44,02,000/- (Rs. Forty Four Lakhs Two Thousand Only) to the petitioner Naresh Gupta along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of petition/ DAR till realization to be paid by the respondent no.1, 2 & 4, jointly and severally. Amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the compensation amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case.
47. The respondent no.1, 2 & 4, jointly and severally, are directed to deposit the award amount in A/c no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code ______________________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. 370/2018 & 369/2018 Page 23 of 30 UCBA0002078), UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT, Shahdara, through RTGS/ NEFT, within 30 days from today.
Disbursement of Award Amount
48. Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, is directed that a sum of Rs.4,02,000/- along with corresponding interest shall be forthwith released to the petitioner and rest of his share amounting to Rs.40,00,000/- along with corresponding interest shall be kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit) in the form of 120 monthly FDRs of equal amount to be prepared in her name, payable to her for a period of 1 to 120 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in FAO No. 8433/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Others v. Jaibir Singh & Others. The amount of aforesaid FDRs on maturity would be released in MACT saving bank account of the petitioner without any further order to that effect.
AWARD In MACT no. 369/2018 (Nasir v. Amit & Ors.)
49. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand Only) to the petitioner Nasir along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of petition/ DAR till realization to be paid by the respondent no.1, 2 & 4, jointly and severally.
50. The respondent no.1, 2 & 4, jointly and severally, are directed to ______________________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. 370/2018 & 369/2018 Page 24 of 30 deposit the award amount in A/c no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code UCBA0002078), UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT, Shahdara, through RTGS/ NEFT, within 30 days from today.
Disbursement of Award Amount
51. Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, is directed to release the entire award amount along with accrued interest thereon to the petitioner by way of transferring the same into his saving bank account.
Direction to the petitioner(s)
52. The petitioner(s) shall open a saving bank account near the place of his/her/their residence. Further, the bank of petitioner(s) is/ are directed to comply with the following conditions:
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e., the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the ______________________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. 370/2018 & 369/2018 Page 25 of 30 disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
53. As per Annexure-XIII of 'The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the relevant Forms to be incorporated in the awards are as under:
FORM -XVI SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD In MACT no. 370/2018 Naresh Gupta v. Amit & Ors.
(In Re: injured Naresh Gupta)
1. Date of accident : 24.02.2018
2. Name of the injured : Naresh Gupta
3. Age of the injured : 52 years (present age)
4. Occupation of the injured : Self employed
5. Income of the injured : Rs.2,63,744/- per annum
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured : Hospitalization & OPD treatment
8. Period of hospitalization : (i) 24.02.2018 to 05.03.2018
(ii) 29.09.2018 to 30.09.2018
9. Whether any permanent disability? : Yes. 80% permanent locomotor (If yes, give details) impairment in relation to whole body.
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs.3,05,601/-
______________________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. 370/2018 & 369/2018 Page 26 of 30
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.50,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs.50,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs.50,000/-
(v) Cost of artificial limb Nil (vi) Loss of earning capacity Nil (vii) Loss of income (during treatment) Rs.1,53,851/-
(viii) Any other loss which may require any Not applicable special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and physical Rs.50,000/-
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering
(iii) Loss of amenities of life --
(iv) Disfiguration Not applicable
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Not applicable
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, --
hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning Permanent Disability capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and 80% in relation to the whole nature of disability as permanent or body. 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 80% (functional disability) in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - Rs.36,92,416/-
(Income x% Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.44,01,868/-
(rounded off to Rs.44,02,000/-) ______________________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. 370/2018 & 369/2018 Page 27 of 30
15. INTEREST AWARDED @ 6%
16. Interest amount up to the date of the Rs.17,58,599/-
award (for 6 years, 07 months & 27 days)
17. Total amount including interest Rs.61,60,467/-
18. Award amount released Rs.4,02,000/- along with corresponding interest
19. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.40,00,000/- along with corresponding interest
20. Mode of disbursements of the award Bank Transfer amount to the claimants(s).
21. Next Date for compliance of the 17.03.2025 award.
FORM -XVI SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD In MACT no. 369/2018 Nasir. Amit & Ors.
(In Re: injured Nasir)
1. Date of accident : 24.02.2018
2. Name of the injured : Nasir
3. Age of the injured : 28 years (present age)
4. Occupation of the injured : Self employed
5. Income of the injured : Not assessed
6. Nature of injury : Simple
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured : Hospitalization
8. Period of hospitalization : Discharged on the same day
9. Whether any permanent disability? : No. (If yes, give details)
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment Nil ______________________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. 370/2018 & 369/2018 Page 28 of 30
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance
(iii) Expenditure on special diet
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant
(v) Cost of artificial limb N.A.
(vi) Loss of earning capacity N.A.
(vii) Loss of income (during treatment) Nil
(viii) Any other loss which may require N.A. any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and Rs.20,000/-
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering
(iii) Loss of amenities of life N.A.
(iv) Disfiguration N.A.
(v) Loss of marriage prospects N.A.
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, --
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress, dejectment
and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning N.A. capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and --
nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of --
expectation of life span on account
of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning --
capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - --
(Income x% Earning Capacity x
Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.20,000/-
______________________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. 370/2018 & 369/2018 Page 29 of 30
15. INTEREST AWARDED @ 6%
16. Interest amount up to the date of the Rs.7,990/-
award (for 6 years, 07 months & 27 days)
17. Total amount including interest Rs.27,990/-
18. Award amount released Entire
19. Award amount kept in FDRs Nil
20. Mode of disbursement of the award Bank Transfer amount to the claimants(s).
21. Next Date for compliance of the 17.03.2025 award.
54. With these observations, both the present DARs/ claim petitions are disposed of. A copy of judgment/ award be sent to respondent no.1, 2 and 4 for compliance of the award, on filing PF by the petitioners, within one week from today. Files be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed VIJAY by VIJAY KUMAR
KUMAR JHA
Date: 2025.01.31
JHA 16:15:34 +0530
Announced in the open (VIJAY KUMAR JHA)
Court on 31.01.2025 Presiding Officer-MACT (Shahdara)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
______________________________________________________________________ MACT Nos. 370/2018 & 369/2018 Page 30 of 30