Delhi District Court
Sumit Kumar vs Ved Parkash Ors on 31 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MAYURI SINGH
PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
EAST DISTRICT : KARKARDOOMA COURTS
DELHI
In the matter of :
MACP No.336/21
Sumit Kumar Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors.
Sumit Kumar
S/o Sh. Ajayveer Singh
R/o H. No. 57, Hansh Garden,
Teelashabajpur, Loni Dehat,
Ghaziabad, U.P.
.... Petitioner.
Versus
1. Ved Prakash (Driver)
S/o Sh. Ram Kumar
R/o Tem Khidarsar, Jhunjhunuper,
Chaudhriwas, Hisar, Jhunjhunun-331027.
2. Gopal Singh (Owner)
S/o Sh. Ram Lal
R/o H.No.318, Old Seema Puri , Jhilmil,
Vivek Vihar, Delhi-110095.
3. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.
Through its Regional Manager
At 506-507, 5th floor, Pragatideep Building
Laxmi Nagar, District Centre, New Delhi-110092.
...... Respondents.
Date of Institution : 21.10.2021
Date of Reserve of Order : Not reserved
Date of Judgment : 31.05.2025
MACP No.336/21 Sumit Kumar Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. Page 1 of 23
AWAR D
1. The present claim petition has been filed under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein after Act) filed by the petitioner for claiming compensation on account of injuries suffered by petitioner Sumit Kumar in the accident.
2. Facts narrated as per the claim petition are that on 19.09.2021 at about 4:30 pm, the accident took place near Apsara Cinema, out post, area limit. On the said date and time, the petitioner was going from Shahdara to Ghaziabad on a motorcycle bearing registration No. UP-14DQ-3933 and when he reached near Bridge at Aprasa Cinema, the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.DL-1LAC-6617 came driving in a rash and negligent manner and hit the injured with great and violent force. Due to the accident, petitioner sustained several injuries all over his body and amputation in his right hand. He was shifted to Narender Mohan Hospital, U.P. where his MLC was prepared and later he was referred to AIIMS Hospital for further treatment. In this connection, an FIR bearing No.1986/21 was registered at PS Sahibabad.
3. All of the respondents put in their appearance and filed their replies/ written statements.
3(i) In the joint written statement filed by the Respondent No. 1 & 2, it is stated that petition is false and petitioner has not come to the Tribunal with clean hands and that there was no negligence at the end of R-1 /driver. It is further stated that petitioner met with an accident due to his own wrong driving as he was coming from wrong side by violating the traffic rules and hit the vehicle of R-1 from front side, due to which the accident occurred. It is further stated that petitioner was not having valid driving MACP No.336/21 Sumit Kumar Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. Page 2 of 23 licence and his vehicle was not insured at the time of alleged accident and respondents are not liable to pay any compensation.
3(ii) In the written statement filed by the insurer, it is stated that petitioner has not approached with clean hands and insurance company was not intimated about the accident by other respondents and petitioner. There was no negligence of the driver and alleged vehicle was not involved in the accident. There was unexplained delay in registration of FIR. Injured was driving his motorcycle in a negligent manner and contributed to the accident. It is admitted that offending vehicle was insured with R-3 from 04.06.2021 to 03.06.2022. Other general defences have been taken by the insurance company.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 20.07.2022:
(i) Whether the petitioner Sumit Kumar suffered grievous injuries in a motor vehicular accident which happened on 19.09.2021 at about 04:30 p.m., Apsara Cinema, outpost are limit, Sahibabad, Ghaizabad, U.P. within jurisdiction of PS Sahibabad, due to rash and negligent driving of Tata 709 (goods carrier) bearing registration No. DL-1LAC-6617 being driven by respondent no.1/ Ved Prakash ? (OPP).
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation on account of said injuries and if yes, to what amount and from whom? (OPP).
(iii) Relief.
5. In order to prove the present case, petitioner examined himself as PW1 and deposed on the strength of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and deposed regarding manner of accident, injuries suffered by him and the medical MACP No.336/21 Sumit Kumar Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. Page 3 of 23 expenses incurred on his treatment and relied upon following documents:-
• Copy of aadhar card is Ex. PW1/1
• Copy of driving licence is Ex. PW1/2
• Copy of PAN card is Ex.PW1/3
• Education certificate is Ex.PW1/4
• Copy of treatment bill and medical bills are Ex. PW1/5
• Disability Certificate is Ex. PW1/6
• Copy of appointment letter is Ex. PW1/7
• Copy of criminal case record is Ex. PW1/8.
PW1 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsels for respondents. 5.2 Dr. Sunil, Fusion Rehab Innovation Clinic, was examined as PW2. He produced the bill Ex.PW2/1 regarding myo electric prosthesis for petitioner. He also produced discharge summary of petitioner which is Ex.PW2/2 and deposed that he had examined Sumit Kumar on 16.03.2022 and prosthesis limb was fitted upon Sumit Kumar & it is expected that duration of prosthesis limb is about 5-10 years.
5.3 PW3 Paramjeet Singh Munjal, Astt. Manager, Compliance Team lease Services Ltd produced authority letter Ex.PW3/A and record pertaining to the petitioner Sumit Kumar Ex.PW3/B. He deposed that he had brought the attested copy of pay slip for the month September 2021 and October 2021 of Sumit Kumar which is Ex.PW3/C. He further deposed that he had brought the muster roll showing attendance of Sumit Kumar for the month of August and September and attested copy of register of wages form XVII of Sumit Kumar Ex. PW3/D and E respectively. He produced certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act i.e. Ex.PW3/F issued by Team Lease Services Ltd for the documents Ex. PW3/A to E.
6. In their defence, respondents No.3 stepped into witness box and led evidence.
MACP No.336/21 Sumit Kumar Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. Page 4 of 236.2 R3W1 Sh Umesh Singh Chauhan,Sr Legal executive, Shriram GIC deposed on the strength of her affidavit Ex.R3W1/A. He relied on insurance policy Ex. R3W1/1, notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC Ex. R3W1/2, original postal receipt Ex.R3W1/3 and Ex.R3W1/4. He deposed inter alia that the alleged offending vehicle did not have valid permit at the time of accident, which is a violation of insurance policy and hence, insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 6.2 R3W2/ Sh. Rahul deposed that he is associate investigator on behalf of insurance company and filed his investigation report and authority letter issued by Sh. Ajay Kumar Jain, Surveyor, Loss Assessal and investigator which are Ex. R3W2/1 and R3W2/2 respectively.
7. None of the respondent witnesses were cross-examined by either R-1 and R-2 or the petitioner. It is relevant here to mention that Pushpak Jain, Kefin Technologies was also summoned by the petitioner and he deposed that petitioner was never employed by Kefin Technologies and further that Kefin Technologies takes services of third party i.e. Team Lease Services Ltd on contractual basis but has no concern or dealing with the employees hired by Team Lease Services Pvt. Ltd and after statement was given in this regard and recorded before the Tribunal on 07.06.2023, request was made by counsel for the petitioner to issue process to Team Lease Services Ltd for producing employment and salary record of petitioner and thereafter PW3 was summoned and examined from the petitioner side.
8. I have heard Sh. Ankit Srivastava, Ld. Counsel for petitioner; Sh. P.K.Shahi, proxy counsel for insurer on behalf of main counsel Sh. S.K. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for R-3 / insurer. No arguments have been addressed on behalf of R-1 and R-2 and opportunity to address arguments was closed on 31.05.2025. Record and written submissions have been perused.
MACP No.336/21 Sumit Kumar Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. Page 5 of 239. The issues are decided as follows:-
ISSUE No.1:
10. 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 tested on the touchstone of principle of preponderance of probabilities.
11. In order to prove his case, the petitioner himself stepped into witness box as PW1. He testified that on 19.09.2021 at about 4:30 pm, he was travelling on motorcycle bearing registration No.UP-14DQ-3933 from Shahdara towards Ghaziabad and when he reached at barrier in front of Apsara Cinema via side of the bridge, suddenly a vehicle Tata 709 bearing registration No. DL-1LAC-6617, being driven by its driver at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner without caring traffic rules, came off the bridge and hit the motorcycle of the petitioner. He further asserted that as a result, the injured fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries all over his body. He further deposed that after the accident, he was removed to Narender Mohan Hospital & Heart Centre, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P. He clearly deposed that accident occurred due to being hit by the offending vehicle, being driven by R-1 and that he was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. His testimony could not be impeached during cross-examination on the point of factum of accident and fault of R-1. Petitioner failed to produce his DL and suggestion was given to him in his cross-examination that he did not have any driving licence. However, no such suggestion was given that petitioner did not know how to drive. Driver / R-1 did not lead any evidence in defence and there is nothing to controvert the manner of accident as alleged by the petitioner.
MACP No.336/21 Sumit Kumar Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. Page 6 of 23The mechanical inspection report of the victim vehicle does not support the version of the petitioner insofar as the allegation regarding the offending vehicle being at a fast speed is concerned. It is also to note that while petitioner has stated that the offending vehicle had hit his motor-cycle from behind, the mechanical inspection only shows one frontal damage and no damage at the back. It is relevant to note that R-1 and R-2 had taken up the plea in their written statement that petitioner was coming from wrong direction and hit the offending vehicle with his motor-cycle from front. However, during cross-examination of PW1 by Ld. Counsel for R-1 and R-2, no such suggestion was given to petitioner that he was coming from the wrong direction and hit the offending vehicle from front. Site plan also does not suggest that it was a case of head-on-collision. R-3 has taken up the plea that offending vehicle has been planted but nothing has been brought on record in support of the same. Petitioner has stated that he was taken to Hospital by PCR and police did not register the FIR of the accident. The medical paper of Narender Mohan Hospital shows that history of road traffic accident was reported to the doctor and hence it was the duty of the police to register FIR without delay, even if petitioner was indisposed to give statement on the date of accident. R-1 and R-2 have nowhere stated that their vehicle has been planted in this case. No relation between petitioner and R-1 and R-2 is established either to suggest any collusion among them. Hence, mere delay in registration of FIR is not fatal to the claim case of the petitioner. In the FIR itself, informant /brother of the petitioner mentioned to the police that informant was busy in treatment of the petitioner and in the medical document of AIIMS Hospital, it is mentioned that alleged history of patient being on motor-cycle and hit by a truck near Apsara Border, U.P. was reported to the doctor.
MACP No.336/21 Sumit Kumar Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. Page 7 of 2312. Further, it is not disputed that respondent No.1/driver Ved Prakash was charge-sheeted in the aforesaid criminal case for causing the accident by driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Thus, prima-facie, it is clear that respondent No.1 was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at the time of accident.
13. After investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against respondent no. 1 the driver of the car. Filing of charge-sheet against the driver of offending vehicle prima-facie points to his culpability. (New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Smt. Washeema Bano (2022) SCC OnLine All 403 and Mangla Ram vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd (2018) 5SCC
656).
14. In New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Pazhaniammal (2011) (2) KLT 648, the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala has held that as a general rule, it can be accepted that production of charge-sheet is prima-facie sufficient evidence of negligence for the purpose of claim under section 166 MV Act. If any party does not accept such charge-sheet, the burden must be on such party to adduce evidence. If the Tribunal feels that charge- sheet is collusive, it can record that charge-sheet cannot be accepted and call upon the parties at any stage to adduce oral evidence of accident and alleged negligence. In such cases, issue of negligence must be decided on other evidence ignoring the charge-sheet.
15. MLC of the petitioner and discharge summary of AIIMS hospital, which is part of criminal case record Ex.PW1/8 suggest that he sustained crush injuries and grade 3 liver injury with right below elbow amputation done for crush injury in right upper limb. Hence it is clear that petitioner suffered grievous injuries due to the accident.
MACP No.336/21 Sumit Kumar Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. Page 8 of 2316. In view of above, on the basis of preponderance of probabilities of evidence and for filing of charge-sheet, it is proved that the petitioner Sumit Kumar received grievous injuries due to rash and negligent act of respondent no.1 Ved Prakash, the driver of the offending vehicle. Thus, issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE No. 2:-
17. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be pittance.
18. The case of Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar & Another (2011) 1 SCC 343, is one of the most prominent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which deals with compensation in injuries cases. It was held in this case that in routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under the heads-(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 (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment and (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation is also to be done under the head of loss of future earnings which would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured. The tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability, as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. What requires to be assessed by the tribunal is the effect MACP No.336/21 Sumit Kumar Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. Page 9 of 23 of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of percentage of the income. It has to be quantified in terms of money to arrive at the future loss of earnings by applying standard multiplier method. All injuries or permanent disabilities arising from injuries do not result in loss of earning capacity. If there is no loss of employment or earning capacity, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities consequent to his injuries.
19. Therefore, on the basis of the injuries to the petitioner, the compensation is awarded to him under the afore-said heads as follows :-
MEDICAL EXPENSES:
20. PW1 / petitioner has placed and proved on record his medical bills Ex. PW1/5 to the tune of Rs 3737/-. All the bill are in original but in order and no serious dispute to the bills has been raised. Therefore, a sum of Rs.3737/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
PAIN AND SUFFERING:
21. Petitioner has deposed that after the accident, he was taken to Narender Mohan Hospital & Heart Centre,Mohan Nagar Ghaziabad and thereafter referred to AIIMS, Delhi and he remained admitted at AIIMS, Delhi from 19.09.2021 to 11.10.2021. It is further deposed that during the course of treatment, the right hand of the petitioner was amputated through mid right forearm. Perusal of discharge summary which is part of document Ex.PW1/8, he was diagnosed with grade 3 liver injury with right below elbow amputation done for crush injury in right upper limb. Further, petitioner has also suffered 75% permanent disability with respect to right MACP No.336/21 Sumit Kumar Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. Page 10 of 23 upper limb with below elbow amputation. In view of this, it is clear the petitioner must have remained under considerable pain and suffering for a considerable period of time during his treatment and he underwent surgery during the period of his hospitalization. Keeping in view of nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner in the accident, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- is granted to the petitioner towards pain and suffering. LOSS OF INCOME (DURING TREATMENT):
22. Petitioner has mentioned in the claim petition that he was working with Team Lease Service Ltd as associate and was earning Rs.15,135/- per month. PW3 / Assistant Manager, Team Lease services proved on record the appointment letter Ex.PW3/B dated 23.11.2021 and attested copy of salary slips Ex.PW3/C. It is relevant here to note that original appointment letter duly signed by the petitioner was never produced on record and further the appointment letter shows the address of the company as that of Banglore and further, it does not specify the work place of the petitioner and merely shows that he was supposed to work at the premises of another company named Kfin Technologies but even the work place / address of kfin technologies is not mentioned anywhere in the document Ex.Pw3/B. It is further to note that no muster roll of the company was produced by PW3 and the witness from Kefin Technologies denied any association with the petitioner as an employee and the witness placed on record his identity card, showing the address of company as that of Telanagana. No bank statement has been filed by the petitioner to show any credit of salary and no such document has been placed on record to suggest that the petitioner was data entry operator with Teamlease. The educational document of the petitioner shows him to be a matriculate. It is noteworthy to mention that appointment letter suggest that appointment was temporary and for a period of 4 months and the services were hired just about 20 days MACP No.336/21 Sumit Kumar Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. Page 11 of 23 prior to the accident in U.P. In absence of anything to contrary, the place of employment can be taken to be Banglore and even though PW3 claimed the address of his office at Delhi, he did not produce his identity card before the Tribunal and did not aver a word to suggest that petitioner was working in Delhi at any address, in the office of either Teamlease or kfin technologies. At the same time, it is seen that no specific suggestion was given to PW3 to dispute the appointment letter and employment of petitioner with Teamlease, further no suggestion was given to PW1 regarding his employment with Teamlease or that he was unemployed and merely the salary has been disputed. Further, in the salary slip Ex.PW3/C, the word 'Delhi' is mentioned under the head of Location. Hence, no serious dispute to the employment and salary of the petitioner has been raised by the insurer. Hence, his salary is taken on the basis of salary slip August 2021 which is Rs. 13,926/-. It is seen that even after the accident, petitioner joined office in the month of October 2021 and worked for 3 days (as per pay slip for the month of October 2021 and register of wages for the said month). Petitioner has stated that after the accident, he became unemployed. However, the employment letter shows that his employment was temporary and only till November 2021 and salary slip of November 2021 is not placed on record and no final settlement is placed or proved on record either to suggest that petitioner was thrown out of job and he admitted the suggestion of counsel for R-3 that he has no document to show that he was dismissed or terminated by the company. There is nothing brought on record to suggest that with his qualification and capability, petitioner made efforts to take up a job after his temporary employment but could not succeed. Petitioner has not produced any certificate from the treating doctor to suggest that he was indisposed to work or on bed rest for any particular period of time post accident. Further, it is admitted by him MACP No.336/21 Sumit Kumar Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. Page 12 of 23 that there is no document to suggest that he applied for any leave from company during his treatment, rather pay slip of October 2021 shows that he joined the work in the very next month post accident. However, it cannot be lost sight that he worked in the month of October 2021 for only 3 days. It is also to be borne in mind that in the month of August 2021 as well i.e. prior to the accident, he only worked for 8 days. Considering the nature of injuries, it can be reasonably assumed that he must have not been able to work for about 02 months. Thus, a sum of Rs.27,852/-(13926X2) is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF PERMANENT DISABILITY :
23. The disability certificate Ex. PW1/6 of Dr. Hedgewar Hospital clearly shows that petitioner suffered from 75% permanent disability in relation to right upper limb with below elbow amputation. No averment has been made by the petitioner to suggest that right hand was dominant hand of the petitioner. Further, though petitioner stated in is evidence that he was data entry operator but no evidence has been led in this regard and appointment letter does not suggest so. However, no suggestion was put to the petitioner to dispute his work as Data Entry operator by the respondent. In the absence of anything to contrary, the amputated limb can be considered to be dominant hand of the petitioner. No witness from the Disability Board was examined. Petitioner is stated to be working as Data entry operator prior to the accident and considering the nature of injuries, his future job prospects may be hampered to a considerable extent. He has not brought on record any documentary evidence to suggest that he was thrown out of the job, due to permanent disability sustained in the accident and was not given sick leave after sustaining injuries in the accident. Hence, in my considered view, petitioner has failed to lead any cogent MACP No.336/21 Sumit Kumar Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. Page 13 of 23 evidence on the point of any functional disability in relation to the permanent disability suffered by him. In the given facts and circumstances and considering that petitioner suffered from permanent disability to the extent of 75%, I am of the considered that a balanced approach has to be taken by the Tribunal and it can be assumed that his functional capability has been hampered on account of permanent disability. Hence, the functional permanent disability of the petitioner is considered to be 35% in relation to whole body of the petitioner for the purpose of assessing corresponding loss of income of petitioner.
24. The copy of Aadhar card Ex.PW1/1 of the petitioner shows the date of birth of petitioner as 10.09.1996, which would mean that he was 25 years and 9 days of age at the time of accident and thus, multiplier of 18 would be applicable. Further, an addition of income of injured for future prospects to the extent of 40 % has to be considered as the age of the petitioner was less than 40 years (National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680, Pappu Dev Yadav vs Naresh Kumar and others 2010 SCC online SC 752 and Sohan Lal vs. Taj Khan & Ors., 2019 ACJ 252, Rajasthan High Court). As discussed above,the monthly income of the petitioner has been assessed as Rs.13926/-. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the sum of Rs.14,73,928/- [35% of (13,926x140/100x12x18)]. Therefore, a sum of Rs.14,73,928/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
CONVEYANCE, ATTENDANT & SPECIAL DIET CHARGES:
25. Though no evidence has come on record to prove the expenses incurred by the petitioner on the conveyance, however, considering that the petitioner remained hospitalized for long period (from 19.09.2021 to 11.10.2021) and was under treatment over a considerable period of time, an MACP No.336/21 Sumit Kumar Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. Page 14 of 23 inference can be drawn that substantial amount must have been incurred by the family members of petitioner over conveyance and further considering nature of injuries and the age of the petitioner, special diet must have been required for her recovery. Thus, the petitioner is granted a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards conveyance and Rs.20,000/- towards special diet.
26. Further, it cannot be ignored that family members of the petitioner must have had to render their services for providing assistance to the petitioner in his routine activities and that was bound to suffer their work / job. For claiming compensation, necessity of employing a professional attendant / care taker is not required and the petitioner should be compensated for the value of services of the family members, which has been or would be necessitated by the wrong doing of the driver. (Refer :
DTC & Ors Vs. Lalita, 1983 ACJ 253). In view of above, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded to petitioner as attendant charges.
27. Thus, a total sum of Rs.50,000/- (15,000+20,000+15,000) is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
ARTIFICIAL LIMB:
28. Learned counsel for petitioner has argued that petitioner has suffered amputation of right upper limb below elbow due to injuries suffered by him in the road accident and he will require assistance of an artificial limb for the rest of his life. In this regard, petitioner also examined Dr.Sunil, Fusion Rehab Innovation Clinic to prove the cost of artificial limb fitted on the petitioner. He produced the bill Ex. PW2/1 for a sum of Rs.1,75,500/- for Myo-Electric Prosthesis. He deposed that prosthesis limbwas fitted upon the patient Sumit Kumar and it is expected that duration of the prosthesis limbs is about 5 to 10 years. He did not aver a word regarding any maintainence charges involved for the prosthesis. A MACP No.336/21 Sumit Kumar Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. Page 15 of 23 myo electric prosthesis is an artificial limb controlled by the users muscles contractions (https://www.sciencedirect.com). The bill Ex.PW2/2 mentions that maintainence charges are according to the condition and general maintainence charges is mentioned as Rs.5000/-. In the absence of anything to the contrary brought on record the annual maintainence charges are assumed to be Rs.5000/-. Hence, even though petitioner has not specifically asked for the maintainence charges for the prosthesis, the same is being provided to the petitioner. Therefore, considering the price of the prosthesis and annual maintainence charges and considering the present age of the petitioner, it is assumed that even if the life span of prosthesis is about 08 to 10 years, he would require about 6 to 7 replacements. Accordingly, the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.14,78,500/- (1,75,500 x7 + 5,000 x 50) under this head keeping in mind that during his life time he may require seven sets of artificial limbs as he was about 26 years old when he had first prosthesis fitted post accident in the year 2021. As petitioner has alredy incurred of Rs.1,75,500/- over the fiting of the prosthesis, the said amount out of the total amount of Rs. 14,78,500/- is required to be immediately released in favour of the petitioner. However, the rest of the said amount i.e. 13,03,000/- shall not be released directly to the petitioner and same shall be kept in form of a separate FDR and shall be disbursed directly to the Hospital/Agency, from where the artificial limb is sought to be purchased/ replaced. The amount in the FDR is to be released only upon showing the medical advise / purchase bills / treatment documents for the purpose of seeking withdrawal of the amount put in FDR in compliance of judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court titled as Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Neha & Ors. MAC App No. 600/12, dated 08.03.2016.
MACP No.336/21 Sumit Kumar Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. Page 16 of 23LOSS OF AMENITIES AND LOSS OF MARRIAGE PROSPECTS
29. Further, the petitioner is granted Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of amenities and Rs.50,000/- is granted towards loss of marriage prospects.
30. Thus, the compensation awarded to the petitioner is summarized as under:-
Sl. No. Head of compensation Amount
1. Medical Expenses Rs.3737/-
2. Pain & Suffering Rs.1,50,000/-
Loss of income (during Rs.27,852/-
3. treatment and in future due to
permanent disability)
Conveyance, Attendant and Rs.50,000/-
4. Special Diet expenses
Loss of future income on Rs.14,73,928/-
5. account of permanent disability
Artificial limb Rs.14,78,500/-
6.
Loss of amenities and Loss of Rs.1,50,000/-
7. marriage prospects
TOTAL Rs.33,34,017/-
(Rounded off to
Rs.33,34,000/-)
31. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.33,34,000/-.
LIABILITY
32. Now, the question arises as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Insurance company has contractual and statutory liability to indemnify the insured. However, t he insurance MACP No.336/21 Sumit Kumar Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. Page 17 of 23 company has taken plea in its written statement that the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective permit on the date of accident and breached the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. To substantiate its plea, insurance company has examined R3W1 who has proved on record document Ex.R3W1/1 i.e. insurance policy which reflects that policy covers use only under a valid permit. R3W2, Associate Investigator of the insurance company was also examined who has proved his report Ex.R3W214 to strength their plea. R3W1 and R3W2 were not subjected to cross-examination by respondent No.1 and 2 on this point. Respondents No.1 & 2 did not choose to enter witness box to disprove the plea of insurance company. Even they have not brought on record any permit or route permit. Thus, terms and conditions of the insurance policy were breached by plying the offending vehicle in U.P. at the time of accident. However, the breach in question is not such as would affect the right of third party, once it is established that vehicle was covered under the policy of insurance. Law is well settled that insurance company would be entitled for recovery of the compensation amount from the driver and registered owner /insured of the offending vehicle. In case titled as Gurmeet Singh vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors, MAC App 288/2021 decided on 06.10.2023, it has been held that the respondent no. 3 / insure is entitled to recover the compensation amount paid to the claimants. In such circumstances, insurance company is entitled for recovery of the compensation amount from the respondent No.1 and 2, jointly and severally, after paying the aforesaid compensation to the petitioners in the first place. In view of above, it is held that respondent no.3/ insurer shall be liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners with recovery rights qua respondents No.1 and 2.
INTEREST
33. The petitioner has conducted the proceedings in this case since year 2021. Therefore, he is entitled for interest @ 7.5% per annum on the MACP No.336/21 Sumit Kumar Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. Page 18 of 23 aforesaid award amount from the date of filing of the petition till date of realization.
RELIEF:
34. In view of the findings on said issues, this Tribunal awards a total compensation of Rs.33,34,000/-/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakhs and Thirty Four Thousand only) alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum w.e.f. date of filing of the petition till the date of its realization, in favour of petitioner and against the Respondent No. 3 / Shri Ram GIC Ltd, to be recovered from the R-1 and R-2, after paying the same to the petitioner. The award amount is required to be deposited with this Tribunal within 30 days.
Disbursement of Award Amount :
35. Since the petitioner has already spent a sum of Rs.1,75,500/- on the prosthesis limb, the said amount is required to be released to the petitioner immediately. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.3,34,000/- only is directed to be released forthwith into the MACT Saving Bank Account of the petitioner. Further, out of rest of the award amount of Rs.30,00,000, a sum of Rs.13,03,000/- towards artificial limb, as discussed above, shall be secured in the form of one separate FDR and shall be disbursed directly to the Hospital/Agency from where the artificial limb is sought to be purchased/ replaced, as per the terms mentioned under the head of Artificial Limb . Further, remaining amount of Rs.16,97,000/- along with the interest on the entire award amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in the form of FDRs in the following manner :-
SL No. Amount Period of FDR
1. Rs.2,00,000/- 1 year
MACP No.336/21 Sumit Kumar Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. Page 19 of 23
2. Rs.2,00,000/- 2 years
3. Rs.2,00,000/- 3 years
4. Rs.2,00,000/- 4 years
5. Rs.2,00,000/- 5 years
6. Rs.2,00,000/- 6 years
7. Rs.2,00,000/- 7 years
8. Rs.2,97,000/- 8 years
9. Half of the interest 9 years
amount
10. Half of the interest 10 years
amount
36. As per 'The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (Annexure- XIII), the relevant Forms to be incorporated in the award are as under:
Direction to the Petitioner & her Bank The petitioner shall open a saving bank account near the place of his residence. Further, the bank of petitioner is 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 the 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.MACP No.336/21 Sumit Kumar Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. Page 20 of 23
(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 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.
As per 'The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (Annexure-XIII), the relevant Form to be incorporated in the award is as under:
FORM -XVI SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 19.09.2021
2. Name of the injured : Sumit Kumar
3. Age of the injured : 28 years
4. Occupation of the injured : Private Job
5. Income of the injured : Rs.13,926/- per month.
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured : Hospitalization & OPD treatment
8. Period of hospitalization : 15.09.2021 to 17.09.2021
9. Whether any permanent disability? : Yes. 75% permanent disability in relation to right MACP No.336/21 Sumit Kumar Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. Page 21 of 23 upper limb with below elbow amputation.
(If yes, give details)
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs.3737/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.35,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs.15,000/-
(v) Cost of artificial limb Rs.14,78,500/-
(vi) Loss of earning capacity --
(vii) Loss of income (during treatment) Rs.27,852/-
(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.1,50,000/-
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.1,00,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration N.A.
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Rs.50,000/-
(vi) Loss of earning, 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 assessed 75% permanent disability
and nature of disability as
permanent or temporary
MACP No.336/21 Sumit Kumar Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. Page 22 of 23
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of -
expectation of life span on
account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning 35%
capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - Rs.14,73,928/-
(Income x% Earning Capacity x
Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.33,34,000/--
(rounded off from
Rs.33,34,017/-)
15. INTEREST AWARDED 7.5%
16. Interest amount up to the date of Rs.9,02,863/-
the award @ 7.5% (for 03 years 7 months & 10
days)
17. Total amount including interest Rs.42,36,863/-
18. Award amount released Rs.3,34,000/-.
19. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.30 lakhs alongwith accrued
interest till date on the total
award amount
20. Mode of disbursements of the Bank Transfer
award amount to the claimants(s).
21. Next Date for compliance of the 21.07.2025
award.
37. Respondent No.3 shall deposit the award amount within 30 days from today.
38. With these observations, the claim petition is disposed of.Digitally signed by MAYURI
MAYURI SINGH Date: SINGH 2025.05.31 16:52:14 +0100 Announced in the open (Mayuri Singh) Court on 31.05.2025 Presiding Officer-MACT (East) (Total 23 pages) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi MACP No.336/21 Sumit Kumar Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. Page 23 of 23