Delhi District Court
Manish Sharma vs Pukha Ram @ Purkha Ram on 22 April, 2024
MACT/159/2020
Manish Sharma vs. Pukha Ram @Purkha Ram and ors.
IN THE COURT OF SUDESH KUMAR-II :
PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT : SOUTH DISTT. : SAKET
COURTS : NEW DELHI
Petition No. :159/2020
CNR No. DLST01-006358-2020
MANISH SHARMA VS. PUKHA RAM @PURKHA RAM
AND ORS.
Mr. Manish Sharma
S/o Sh. Vijay Sharma
R/o 1/29D Mehrauli
New Delhi - 110030. ......petitioner
Versus
1. Mr. Pukha Ram @ Purkha Ram
S/o Sh. Swai Ram Gawaria
R/o Village Savau Padam Singh,
Post office/P.S. Gida Zila Badamer
Rajasthan. ..driver
2. Mr. Rewat Ram
S/o Sh. Soma Ram
R/o Village Laila Heera Ki Dhani
Tehsil PSA Zila Barmer
Rajasthan - 344037. ..owner
3. Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited
E-8 EPIP, Sita Pura Industrial Area,
Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302022 ..insurance company
.....Respondents
Date of Institution : 17.12.2020
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 22.04.2024
Date of pronouncement : 22.04.2024
Page No.1/25
MACT/159/2020
Manish Sharma vs. Pukha Ram @Purkha Ram 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 for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident which took place on 22.11.2019 near Sipala Village Jaisalmer, Rajasthan. It is alleged that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle no. RJ-19GD-3776 Voloure Pickup HR-61D- 9448 being driven by the respondent no.1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3.
2. The facts as averred in the petition are that on 22.11.2019, the injured Manish Sharma had gone on motorcycle ride with his friends to Jaisalmer on his own motorbike bullet bearing no. DL-3SAN-2354. While returning from the tour at Village Sipala, Jaisalmer (Rajasthan), the respondent no. 1 driving his vehicle bearing no. RJ-19GD- 3776 Voloure Pickup came in a fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner from the front side and hit his motorcycle. Due to said impact, he fell down and the vehicle of the respondent no. 1 run over his left leg and crushed his left leg. As a result thereof, the claimant suffered 80% permanent physical impairment in respect of his left leg.
3. The respondent no.(s) 1 and 2 have not appeared despite service through publication in newspaper Virat Vaibhav dated 20.05.2023. Accordingly, they were proceeded ex-parte Page No.2/25 MACT/159/2020 Manish Sharma vs. Pukha Ram @Purkha Ram and ors.
vide order dated 19.08.2023.
4. The insurance company contested the claim by filing its reply inter-alia submitting that the present case appears to be filed in collusion between the petitioner and owner, driver of vehicle no. RJ-19GD-3776 as there is delay in registration of FIR. It was averred that a false FIR was got registered in collusion with the driver and owner of alleged insured vehicle. It is alleged that the manner in which the alleged accident is stated to have occurred is absolutely concocted.
5. After completion of the pleadings vide order dated 16.10.2023 following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the Manish Sharma sustained injuries in road accident on 22.11.2019 near Sipala Village, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no.
RJ19GD3776 Voloure Pickup being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3 (Shriram General Insurance Company)?... (OPP)
2. To what amount of compensation the LRs of deceased Jitender Singh is entitled and from whom?
3. Relief.
6. Thereafter the matter was referred to Local Commissioner for recording of the evidence on behalf of the parties and Ld. Local Commissioner after recording evidence filed his report.
7. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties and have carefully perused the court record.
Page No.3/25MACT/159/2020 Manish Sharma vs. Pukha Ram @Purkha Ram and ors.
My findings on the issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO. 18. In a claim petition, onus is on the claimant(s)/ petitioner(s) to prove that the deceased suffered fatal injuries in the vehicular accident caused by the wrongful act or negligence on part of the driver of the offending vehicle.
9. In order to establish his claim, the petitioner has examined three witnesses. (1) He examined himself as PW1 (2) Dr. Shweta Jain, Professor Department of PMR VMMC Safdarjung Hospital as PW2 and (3) Sh. Utpal Misra, CFO & VP Operations in Intersoft Data Labs and Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (from the office of employer of the injured) was examined as PW3
10. The respondents have not examined any witness despite opportunities being given.
11. The injured Manish Sharma examined himself as PW1 and filed his affidavit in evidence as Ex.PW1/A. He deposed on the lines of his claim submitting that he is B.Sc computer and was working as a System Annalistic in an IT Company. He alongwith his friends had gone on motorbike rider to Jaisalmer on his own motorbike bullet bearing no. DL-3SAN-2324. While returning from the tour at village Sipala, Jaisalmer (Rajasthan), the respondent no. 1 driving his vehicle RJ19GD-0776 voloure Pickup in fast speed and in rash and negligent manner came from Page No.4/25 MACT/159/2020 Manish Sharma vs. Pukha Ram @Purkha Ram and ors.
the front side and hit his motorcycle. The impact of the hit was so forceful that he fell down and the vehicle run over his left leg and crushed left leg at thigh and left forearm. He became unconscious and sustained serious crush injury on his left leg and left arm. His left leg and left arm had multiple fracture injuries. The respondent no. 1 fled from the spot. As he was unconscious, he was taken to the Jodhpur Hospital for treatment. He further deposed that he was working in a company on the post of System Analyst and he was drawing salary of Rs.1,19,639/-. His brother though informed the police about the accident but because of his serious injury, he also rushed to the hospital. The police officials visited Jodhpur hospital and registered an FIR on 26.11.2019. He was remained admitted in the hospital i.e. Goyal Hospital and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. for treatment. Thereafter he was transferred to Orthopedic Department for the operation on 01.12.2019 and the operation was conducted and his left leg from thigh was amputated. Initially he was admitted in the Shree Jawhar Cikitsalya Jaisalmer Treatment and health Department, Rajasthan on 22.11.2019 and he was referred to higher department. Thereafter he was admitted in Goyal Hospital and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd and was discharged form the hospital on 10.12.2019 after operation. He after discharge got issued disability certificate from the hospital and seeing the nature of injuries disability was assessed at 80% of the left leg. Apart from that he also suffered fracture injury in his left forearm and the same cannot bent and for that his left arm has also became permanently disabled. He has relied upon the following documents in support of his contentions:-
Page No.5/25MACT/159/2020 Manish Sharma vs. Pukha Ram @Purkha Ram and ors.
• Copy of his salary slip Ex.PW1/1. • Copy of income tax return Ex.PW1/2. • His driving licence Ex.PW1/3 • Certified copy of driving licence of respondent no. 1 Ex.PW1/4.
• Copy of registration certificate of erring vehicle as Mark A. • Certified copy of insurance policy issued by respondent no. 3 in favour of respondent no. 2 Ex.PW1/6. • Copy of FIR Ex.PW1/7.
• Certified copy of medical record Ex.Pw1/8. • Copy of disability certificate dated 21.02.2020 Ex.PW1/10 • Photographs of amputated left leg and left forearm Ex.PW1/11.
• MLC of the petitioner Ex.PW1/9.
• Copy of medical bill of artificial limbs centre Ex.PW1/12. • Copy of medical bills of Goel Hospital Pvt. Ltd. and SKG Medicos are Mark B. In his cross-examination by Sh. Sanjay, Ld. counsel for the insurance company, he stated that he has not filed any documents or degree in relation to his B.SC Computer. The salary slip Ex.PW1/1 does not bear any signature or stamp of a company where he was working on the post of System Analyst. He voluntarily stated that it is a computer generated payslip and signatures were not required. He has been working in the company for 3 years. He was receiving the salary in a sum of Rs.1,19,639/- p.m in total. He admitted that PW1/2 copy of income tax return shows his total income as Rs.5,90,150/- per annum for the assessment year 2019-2020. He voluntarily stated that this ITR was filed by his company on his behalf and it was for the period from September 2019 to March 2020 in total not full year. He admitted that the period September 2019 to March 2020 was not mentioned in his ITR. He is not married. His father Page No.6/25 MACT/159/2020 Manish Sharma vs. Pukha Ram @Purkha Ram and ors.
passed away in the year 2021. There is only his mother left behind him. The house is their own house and they are not getting any rent from this house. He denied the suggestion that on the day of accident, he was not following traffic rules and regulations laid down by the Motor Vehicle Act.
12. Dr. Shweta Jain, professor Department of PMR VMMC Safdarjung Hospital was examined as PW2 who produced the summoned record i.e. disability certificate issued to the injured Manish Sharma. As per the said disability certificate, Manish Sharma has suffered 80% disability in relation to his left lower limb.
In cross-examination by respondent no. 3/Insurance Company, she admitted that she has no personal knowledge about the present case. She denied the suggestion that the disability certificate is false and fabricated in order to make out the false case against the respondents.
13. Sh. Utpal Misra, CFO & VP Operations in Intersoft Data Labs and Solutions Pvt. Ltd. was examined as PW3, he produced the summoned record i.e. salary details of petitioner for the year 2020 proved as Ex.PW3/1. He stated that the petitioner was working as a senior system analyst from 26.07.2018 to 24.12.2021 with the Intersoft Data Labs and Solutions Pvt. Ltd..
In his cross-examination, he stated that he has no personal knowledge about the present case but he knew about the accident. The summoned record is a computer generated copy which is duly signed and stamped. He admitted that he has Page No.7/25 MACT/159/2020 Manish Sharma vs. Pukha Ram @Purkha Ram and ors.
brought the summoned documents record related to calendar year 2020 only. He admitted that Rs.1,19,639/- is not mentioned in the abovesaid summon records for the month of July 2020. He stated voluntarily that after totalling of earnings, it became Rs.1,19,639/- and after deductions it becomes Rs.1,09,905/- in summoned record. He has not brought certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act in support of the said document. He denied the suggestion that he is not authorized person on behalf of the company to depose about the salary details that is why he did not bring any authority letter.
14. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has argued forcefully that from the evidence of PW1 coupled with the criminal proceedings filed on record, the petitioner has proved the fact that it was the respondent no. 1 who was responsible for the injuries caused to him by his rash and negligent driving.
15. It has been vehemently contended on behalf of the counsel for the respondent no. 3/ insurance company that the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner Manish who was driving his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner.
16. In the present case, the petitioner has filed certified copies of criminal record which includes charge sheet, site plan etc. Charge sheet has been filed against the respondent no.1. PW1 Manish Sharma who is the injured had categorically deposed about the occurrence of the accident due to rash and Page No.8/25 MACT/159/2020 Manish Sharma vs. Pukha Ram @Purkha Ram and ors.
negligent driving of the Respondent No.1. No other version of accident has come on record except the one as narrated by the injured. The respondents have not examined any witness in support of their contentions. 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 respondent no. 1 in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time.
17. Certified 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 until proved to be contrary. Copies of criminal proceedings filed alongwith it have not been challenged and controverted by any of the respondents.
18. 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 Page No.9/25 MACT/159/2020 Manish Sharma vs. Pukha Ram @Purkha Ram and ors.
to a human being or damage to property would make the petition maintainable u/s 166 & 140 of the M V Act. 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 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.
19. In the present case, it is pertinent to note that the respondent no. 1/ driver of the offending 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. 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 petitioners or even to explain the circumstances of accident. The evidence led by petitioner is unrebutted and un-controverted. He has not filed any complaint to any authority regarding his false implication.
20. All said and done, even the insurance company has not taken any steps to examine the IO or the respondent no. 1 to seek Page No.10/25 MACT/159/2020 Manish Sharma vs. Pukha Ram @Purkha Ram and ors.
their version of the accident which could support the contentions raised on behalf of the insurance company more specifically when the only plea raised by the insurance company is that the petitioner, driver and owner were in collusion. It goes without saying that the proceedings under the MV Act are "summary in nature" and the evidence is not to be recorded and appreciated with all the technicalities of law of evidence. The insurance company did not even deem it fit to summon the driver of the offending vehicle. Indeed, the registered owner and the driver did not contest the matter despite appearing initially but then nothing precluded the appellant/ insurance company from summoning the driver and/or the registered owner so as to substantiate that no accident had take place due to their negligence or that there was any connivance between the parties in filing of a false case.
21. 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.
22. 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 Pukha Ram due to which petitioner received grievous injuries.
Findings on Issue no.2:
To what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled and from whom?
23. Now, the court has to assess as to how much Page No.11/25 MACT/159/2020 Manish Sharma vs. Pukha Ram @Purkha Ram and ors.
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.
24. 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 petitioners. 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 petitioners/claimants for the amount.
25. 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 :
26. As per the record, original medical bills are not filed by the petitioner. Hence, he is not entitled towards medical expenses.
PAIN AND SUFFERINGS AND ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :
27. 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 Page No.12/25 MACT/159/2020 Manish Sharma vs. Pukha Ram @Purkha Ram and ors.
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 objectives 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 80% permanent physical impairment and keeping in view the period of hospitalization and duration of treatment, I am of the opinion that an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- would be just and fair compensation towards his pain and sufferings and enjoyment of life.
SPECIAL DIET, ATTENDANT AND CONVEYANCE CHARGES :
28. In the present case the petitioner has not placed on record any document with regard to his special diet, conveyance and attendant charges. He must have spent some amount on conveyance and attendant. Therefore, looking into all the facts, I award Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner/ injured towards his special diet, conveyance and attendant charges.
LOSS OF INCOME / FUTURE LOSS OF INCOME ARISING OUT OF THE DISABILITY
29. Here in the present case, the petitioner has stated that at the time of accident he was working on the post of System Page No.13/25 MACT/159/2020 Manish Sharma vs. Pukha Ram @Purkha Ram and ors.
Analyst and was drawing salary of Rs.1,19,639/-. To prove this contention, the petitioner has examined PW3 Sh. Utpal Misra, CFO & VP Operations in Intersoft Data Labs and Solutions Pvt. Ltd. who has produced the salary details of the petitioner for the year 2020. The petitioner has filed photocopy of payslip for the month of July 2020 which admittedly does not bear any stamp of the company. However, the accident pertains to year 2019. Nothing has been produced by the petitioner to show his income for the year 2019. Only one ITR for the assessment year 2019-20 Ex.PW1/2 filed by the petitioner showing the income after deductions as Rs.5,90,150/-. Accordingly, Rs.49,179/- pm (Rs.5,90,150 divided by 12) is taken as approximate earning of the injured.
As far as the loss of income is concerned, the petitioner has failed to clarify as to for which period he was not able to work after the accident. Even PW3 Mr. Utpal Mishra appearing fo the petitioner has furnished salary details of the injured from January 2020 to June 2020 as Ex.PW3/1 which means the petitioner started working within two months of his accident which occurred on 22.11.2019. The petitioner has totally failed to clarify the period of time for which he was not able to work. However, in my considered view, the petitioner having suffered amputation of his left leg would not have been able to work for atleast six months. Thus, he is held entitled for loss of income for six months. Thus the loss of income comes to Rs.2,95,074/- (Rs.49179/- x6)
30. It was held in the case of "Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Page No.14/25 MACT/159/2020 Manish Sharma vs. Pukha Ram @Purkha Ram and ors.
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 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 Page No.15/25 MACT/159/2020 Manish Sharma vs. Pukha Ram @Purkha Ram and ors.
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 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 Page No.16/25 MACT/159/2020 Manish Sharma vs. Pukha Ram @Purkha Ram and ors.
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 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 Page No.17/25 MACT/159/2020 Manish Sharma vs. Pukha Ram @Purkha Ram and ors.
determination of compensation.
31. In a very recent judgment announced by the Supreme Court of India in case title 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.
32. Therefore, looking into the physical condition of the petitioner, as a matter of rule the half of the functional disability of the limb has to be taken off for the purpose of calculation of future prospects. Looking into the age of the petitioner and the disability I take him functional disability as 60%. As per the Aadhar Card, the year of birth of the petitioner is 1988. The accident took place on 22.11.2019. Hence, he was 31 years of age at the time of accident. Taking a multiplier of '16', the future loss of income comes to Rs.68,850/- (Rs.49,179/- + 49,179 x 40/100) x 12 x 16 x 60% = Rs.79,31,520/-. I therefore, award Rs.79,31,520/- to the petitioner towards Future Loss of Income on account of permanent disability.
Loss of Amenities :
33. 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.1,00,000/- to the petitioner towards Page No.18/25 MACT/159/2020 Manish Sharma vs. Pukha Ram @Purkha Ram and ors.
loss of amenities.
COMPENSATION FOR ARTIFICIAL LIMB :
34. The petitioner appeared in person before this Tribunal. I have seen his condition. His left leg was amputated in this accident being crushed under the offending vehicle. He has suffered permanent disability of 80% in respect of his left leg. The disability certificate was issued by the Safdarjung Hospital after examination by a Medical Board. However, as per the petitioner he has already got the artificial limb installed for a sum of Rs.7,10,000/-. Photocopy of bill is placed on record which is exhibited as PW1/12 before the Ld. Local Commissioner. However, this document is not legible. Hence, it is directed that the entire compensation amount awarded to the petitioner would be in addition to the expenses towards the artificial limb to be given to him by the insurance company on filing of proper legible or original documents.
The total compensation of the petitioner hence comes out to be :
MEDICAL EXPENSES :nil
PAIN & SUFFERINGS &
ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :Rs.1,50,000/-
SPECIAL DIET, CONVEYANCE &
ATTENDANT :Rs.1,00,000/-
LOSS OF INCOME : Rs.2,95,074/-
FUTURE LOSS OF INCOME :Rs.79,31,520/-
LOSS OF AMENITIES :Rs.1,00,000/-
==========
TOTAL :Rs.85,76,594/-
===========
Page No.19/25
MACT/159/2020
Manish Sharma vs. Pukha Ram @Purkha Ram and ors.
RELIEF
35. In view of my findings, I award Rs.85,76,594/- (Rupees Eighty Five Lakhs Seventy Six Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Four only) to the injured Manish Sharma as compensation alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its realisation.
Out of the awarded amount, a sum of Rs.72,00,000/- is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the following phased manner :
1. Rs.4,00,000/- for a period of 1 year.
2. Rs.4,00,000/- for a period of 2 years.
3. Rs.4,00,000/- for a period of 3 years.
4. Rs.4,00,000/- for a period of 4 years.
5. Rs.4,00,000/- for a period of 5 years.
6. Rs.4,00,000/- for a period of 6 years.
7. Rs.4,00,000/- for a period of 7 years.
8. Rs.4,00,000/- for a period of 8 years.
9. Rs.4,00,000/- for a period of 9 years.
10. Rs.4,00,000/- for a period of 10 years.
11. Rs.4,00,000/- for a period of 11 years.
12. Rs.4,00,000/- for a period of 12 years.
13. Rs.4,00,000/- for a period of 13 years.
14. Rs.4,00,000/- for a period of 14 years.
15. Rs.4,00,000/- for a period of 15 years.
16. Rs.4,00,000/- for a period of 16 years.
17. Rs.4,00,000/- for a period of 17 years.
18. Rs.4,00,000/- for a period of 18 years.
Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
36. 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 is directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the petitioners with State Bank of Page No.20/25 MACT/159/2020 Manish Sharma vs. Pukha Ram @Purkha Ram and ors.
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 period).
37. The respondent no. 3 is 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.
38. 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 petitioner.
39. MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE'(MCTAP)
40. 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 :-
1. The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the Page No.21/25 MACT/159/2020 Manish Sharma vs. Pukha Ram @Purkha Ram and ors.
petitioner/claimant by Automatic Credit of interest of their saving bank account with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
2. 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.
3. No cheque book be issued to petitioner/claimant without the permission of this Court.
4. The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the petitioner/claimant alongwith the photocopy of the FDR's .
5. The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to petitioner/claimant at the end of the fixed deposit period.
6. No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court.
7. Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10.The bank is also directed to get the nomination form filled by the claimant at the time of preparation of FDRs.
11.The bank is also directed to keep the money received from the respondent no. 3 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.
12.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 Page No.22/25 MACT/159/2020 Manish Sharma vs. Pukha Ram @Purkha Ram and ors.
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 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.
Page No.23/25MACT/159/2020 Manish Sharma vs. Pukha Ram @Purkha Ram and ors.
• The case is now fixed for compliance by the respondent no. 3 for 16.07.2024 FORM IV-B SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE Date of accident : 17.12.2020 Name of the injured : Manish Sharma Age of the injured: 31 years Occupation of the injured : System Analyst Income of the injured : Rs.49,179/- per month Nature of injury : Grievous Medical treatment taken by the injured : Yes Computation of Compensation S. Heads Awarded by the No. Claims Tribunal 1 Pecuniary Loss :
i Expenditure on treatment Nil
ii Expenditure on special diet, conveyance and Rs.1,00,000/-
attendant
iii Loss of earning capacity ---
iv Loss of Income Rs.2,95,074/-
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.150,000/-
iii Loss of amenities Rs.1,00,000/-
iv Dis-figuration and marriage prospects -----
Page No.24/25
MACT/159/2020
Manish Sharma vs. Pukha Ram @Purkha Ram and ors.
v Loss of marriage prospects ----- vi Future loss of income Rs.79,31,520/- 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.85,76,594/-
5 INTEREST AWARDED 9% 6 Total amount of interest Rs.26,20,149/- 7 Total amount including interest Rs.1,11,96,743/- 8 Award amount released Rs.39,96,743/-
9 Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.72,00,000/-
10 Mode of disbursement of the award amount Some amounts be
to the claimant(s) released to the
petitioners and some
amounts are directed
to be kept in the form
of fixed deposit.
11 Next date for compliance of the award. 16.07.2024.
Pronounced in open Court today
i.e. 22nd APRIL, 2024
(SUDESH KUMAR-II)
Presiding Officer : MACT (S)
Saket Courts : New Delhi
Page No.25/25