Delhi District Court
Also At: Plot No. 3 vs Javed Ansari (Driver) on 6 January, 2023
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU : JUDGE (MACT)
01 (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
MACT No. 610/2021
CNR No. DLCT010099992021
FIR No. 60/2021
PS: Anand Parbat
U/S: 279/338 IPC
Dhananjay Mahto (Injured)
S/o Sh. Jagdish Mahto
R/o Ward No. 01, Village Ratwaili
Post : Sountha, BlockJalalgarh,
Dhusmar, Purnia, Bihar854325.
Also at: Plot No. 3, Gali No. 01
Industrial Area, Anand Parbat
Delhi110008.
......Petitioner
Versus
1. Javed Ansari (Driver)
S/o Sh. Haroon Ansari
R/o H. No. B283, Mangolpuri, Delhi.
Also at: R/o Village Dehra Bulandi
Post Office: Raja Ka Tajpur
Distt.: Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh246735
2. Yogesh Kumar (Owner)
S/o Ram Niwas Kumar
R/o H. No. B283, Mangol Puri,
Delhi
3. National Insurance Company Ltd. (Insurer)
Division XI, 2nd Floor, 6/90,
Padam Singh Road, Karol Bagh,
Delhi
......Respondents
Dhananjay Mahto Vs. Javed Ansari & Ors. MACT No. 610/2021
Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 1 of 31
Date of filing of DAR: 09.08.2021
Judgment Reserved on: 25.11.2022/ 19.12.2022
Date of Award: 06.01.2023
AWARD:
(1) The present Detailed Accident Report (DAR) has
been filed on 09.08.2021 and has been registered as Motor
Accident Claim Petition regarding a Road Traffic Accident
which took place on 23.03.2021 at 3:30 PM near Ram Dharam
Kanta, Gali No.10, Anand Parbat, Delhi wherein the petitioner
Dhananjay Mehto had suffered Grievous Injuries.
BRIEF FACTS:
(2) The Facts in brief as they emerge from the Detailed Accident Report (DAR) are that on 23.03.2021 at about 3:30 PM the petitioner Dhananjay Mahto was going from Red Light No.10 to Ram Dharamkanta on foot and on the asking of a rickshaw puller, he started pushing the rickshaw from behind when a crane bearing No. HR26DT6458 which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and hit the petitioner and ran over his right foot. The petitioner fell down on the road and sustained injuries on his right foot and other parts of the body. The injured was then taken to Jeewan Mala Hospital, New Rohtak Road, Delhi where he received initial treatment and thereafter he was shifted to RML Hospital where he remained admitted from 24.03.2021 to Dhananjay Mahto Vs. Javed Ansari & Ors. MACT No. 610/2021 Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 2 of 31 12.05.2021. Pursuant to the accident an FIR bearing No. 60/2021 under Sections 279/337 IPC was registered at Police Station Anand Parbat and after obtaining the opinion with regard the nature of injuries, the provisions of Section 338 IPC were added in place of Section 337 IPC.
(3) A joint reply/ written statement has been filed by the respondent no.1 Javed Ansari (Driver of the offending vehicle) and respondent no.2 Yogesh Kumar (Owner of the offending vehicle) wherein it is pleaded that the accident was not caused due to the fault and negligence of the respondent no.1 and the complainant in collusion with the police has implicated the vehicle of the respondents. It is further pleaded that the vehicle in question i.e. Crane bearing No. HR26DT6458 was fully insured with M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. vide Policy No. 36050031200000733 valid upto 19.09.2021 and hence, it is the respondent no.3 Insurance Company who is liable to pay the compensation if any, to the petitioner. It is also pleaded that the alleged offending vehicle was being driven by the respondent no.1 Javed Ansari who is having a valid Driving License and has not committed any breach of terms and conditions of the cover note/ policy.
(4) The respondent no.3 National Insurance Company Ltd. has filed its written statement wherein it is conceded that the vehicle in question was duly insured with them vide Policy No. 360500312010000733 in the name of Yogesh Kumar and the liability of the Insurance Company is limited & subject to the Dhananjay Mahto Vs. Javed Ansari & Ors. MACT No. 610/2021 Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 3 of 31 terms and conditions of the Policy. It is pleaded that the relevant documents i.e. statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., notice under Section 133 of MV Act, its reply, fard, arrest memo, superdari papers; age proof, income proof, identity proof, education proof, complete treatment record of the petitioner etc. have not been provided with the DAR and hence, the Insurance Company has not filed any reasoned/ legal offer.
ISSUES:
(5) On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated 08.11.2021 this Court/ Tribunal had settled the following issues:
1. Whether the petitioner/ injured namely Dhananjay had sustained 'grievous' injury in the road traffic accident which took place on 23.03.2021 at about 3:30 PM at Ram Dharam Kanta, Gali No.10, Anand Parbat, Delhi on account of rash and negligence driving of vehicle bearing no. HR26 DT6458 driven by the respondent no.1 Javed Ansari? (OPP)
2. Whether the petitioner / injured namely Dhananjay is entitled to the compensation? If yes, to what extent and from whom? (OPP)
3. Relief.
Dhananjay Mahto Vs. Javed Ansari & Ors. MACT No. 610/2021 Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 4 of 31 EVIDENCE:
(6) In order to prove his case, the petitioner Dhananjay Mahto has examined himself as his sole witness as PW1. On the other hand the respondent no.1 Javed Ansari has examined himself as his sole witness as R1W1 whereas the respondent no.3 did not examine any witness despite opportunity and the Ld. Counsel had closed the evidence of the Insurance Company. (7) For the sake of convenience the testimonies of the various witnesses examined by the parties are put in tabulated form as under:
S. Witness Deposition
No.
Petitioner / Injured
1. Dhananjay PW1 Dhananjay Mahto is the petitioner himself
Mahto (PW1) who in his examinationinchief by way of affidavit
which is Ex.PW1/A has corroborated the version of the Investigating Agency in the DAR. He has placed his reliance on the following documents:
1. Photocopy of Aadhar Card which is Ex.PW1/B (OSR).
2. Photocopy of Discharge summary which is Mark A.
3. Original discharge summaries along with treatment record which are Ex.PW1/C (colly. 3 pages).
4. Medical Bills which are Ex.PW1/D1 to Ex.PW1/D24.
5. Copy of computer general receipt obtained by moving application for assessment of the physical disability which is Ex.PW1/E.
6. DAR filed by the IO which is Ex.PW1/F (collectively running into 91 pages).
In his cross examination on behalf of the Ld. Counsels for the respondents, the witness has deposed as under:
Dhananjay Mahto Vs. Javed Ansari & Ors. MACT No. 610/2021 Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 5 of 31 ➢ That he was working as labourer in Gujarat prior to his coming to Delhi.
➢ That he just arrived in Delhi on the date of accident.
➢ That he was not at fault since he was not in the middle of the road.
➢ That he has not filed any medical treatment bills worth Rs.1,50,000/ instead whatever he had bills, he has filed the same on record.
➢ That he has not filed any receipt or record pertaining to his expenses incurred upon Conveyance, Special Diet and Attendant charges.
➢ That his assessment in respect of physical disability has not been done till date. ➢ That he has not filed any document to prove that he was earning Rs.18,000/ per month at the time of accident.
➢ That he has not filed any medical advise of the doctor suggesting him to take bed rest for several months.
➢ That the accident had not occurred due to his sole negligence.
➢ That he is totally illiterate.
Respondents Evidence:
2. Javed Ansari R1W1 Javed Ansari is the respondent no.1 himself (R1W1) who in his examination in chief by way of affidavit has corroborated what he has earlier stated in his written statement.
In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.3 Insurance Company, the witness has deposed as under:
➢ That the accident took place on account of sole negligence of the petitioner since his cycle rickshaw had broken down on Gali No. 10 Industrial Area, Anand Parbat and was pushing the rickshaw by hand and slipped.
➢ That he had not already seen that the rickshaw of the petitioner had broken down and he was pushing the same (Voluntarily explained that the petitioner suddenly came out from Gali No. 10).
Dhananjay Mahto Vs. Javed Ansari & Ors. MACT No. 610/2021 Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 6 of 31 ➢ That he did not make a call to the police and has voluntarily stated that somebody made a call to the police.
➢ That he took the petitioner to the hospital and he had also made a payment of Rs.15,000/ via online transaction to the petitioner at the time of accident which was transferred in his account on 15.10.2022 vide receipt Ex.R1W1/B. ➢ That the entire treatment of the petitioner had taken place at Government Hospital. ➢ That the accident was not caused on account of his rash and negligent driving of crane bearing no. HR26DT6458.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS:
(8) I have perused the record placed before me and considered the submissions made before me. I have also considered the written memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the parties. My findings on the various issues are as under:
Issue No.1: Whether the petitioner/ injured namely Dhananjay had sustained 'grievous' injury in the road traffic accident which took place on 23.03.2021 at about 3:30 PM at Ram Dharam Kanta, Gali No.10, Anand Parbat, Delhi on account of rash and negligence driving of vehicle bearing no. HR26 DT6458 driven by the respondent no.1 Javed Ansari? (OPP) (9) Onus of proving the above issue was upon the petitioner. The case of the petitioner Dhananjay Mahto is that on 23.03.2021 at about 3:30 PM he was pushing the rickshaw from behind when a crane bearing No. HR26DT6458 which was Dhananjay Mahto Vs. Javed Ansari & Ors. MACT No. 610/2021 Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 7 of 31 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and hit him and ran over his right foot. According to the petitioner, he fell down on the road and sustained injuries on his right foot and other parts of the body. The case of the petitioner is that he had sustained grievous injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of the above crane by the respondent no.1 Javed Ansari. In this regard the petitioner Dhaananjay Mahto has examined himself as his sole witness as PW1.
(10) On the other hand, the case of the respondent no.1 Javed Ansari is that the accident had taken place on account of negligence of the petitioner himself. The respondent no.1 Javed Ansari has examined himself as his sole witness as R1W1. (11) I have considered the rival contentions and perused the record including the DAR and the documents attached along with the same. I have also gone through the testimony of the petitioner. My findings are as under:
Identity of the respondent no.1 as Driver of the offending vehicle:
(12) Coming first to the identity of the respondent no.1 Javed Ansari as the Driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Crane bearing No. HR26DT6458. I note that there is no dispute on the aspect of the respondent no.1 Javed Ansari being the driver of the above Crane since in his written statement the respondent no.1 has duly admitted that he was driving the above Crane at the time of accident, though he has denied the rashness and negligence attributed to him. This being the background, I hold Dhananjay Mahto Vs. Javed Ansari & Ors. MACT No. 610/2021 Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 8 of 31 that the identity of the respondent no.1 Javed Ansari as driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Crane bearing No. HR26DT 6458 stands established.
Rashness and Negligence attributed to the respondent no.1:
(13) Now coming to the aspect of rashness and negligence so attributed to the respondent no.1 Javed Ansari. According to the petitioner, the accident in question had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Crane bearing No. HR26 DT6458 by the respondent no.1 Javed Ansari. On the other hand, the case of the respondent no.1 is that the accident had taken place on account of the negligence of the petitioner himself.
(14) I have considered the rival contentions and the testimony of the petitioner. It is a settled law that a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is neither a criminal case nor a civil case. In a criminal case for purposes of conviction, the matter is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt whereas in a civil case the matter is to be decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence but in a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the standard proof is much below than what is required in a criminal case as well as in a civil case. No doubt before the Tribunal there must be some material on the basis of which the Tribunal can arrive or decide things necessary to be decided for awarding compensation. In a criminal case the rashness and negligence against the accused has Dhananjay Mahto Vs. Javed Ansari & Ors. MACT No. 610/2021 Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 9 of 31 to be proved beyond reasonable doubt whereas in a civil case or MACT claim for grant of compensation the principle involved is preponderance of probabilities. It would be sufficient if the surrounding circumstances and the material on record establishes the allegations of rashness and negligence made against the driver of the offending vehicle. In a case where the Criminality is an issue, the principles applicable would be proof beyond reasonable doubt but being a Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, this Court/ Tribunal is required to determine the compensation on the basis of principle of preponderance of probabilities. (15) Further, I may observe that Contributory Negligence is a behaviour that contributes to one's own injury or loss and fails to meet the standard of prudence that one should observe for one's own good. Contributory Negligence is when any person suffered damages as a result of his/ her own fault and also partly due to fault of the other side. It involves violation of duty, breach and causation and is complete defence while evaluating the extent of liability and compensation. (16) Now coming to the merits of the present case. I have gone through the documents placed on record. The various aspects as borne out from the record are detailed as under:
(17) Firstly, I note that a perusal of the chargesheet copy of which has been attached along with the DAR shows that on 23.03.2021 an information regarding accident was received at Police Station Anand Parbat vide DD No.57A. Pursuant to the said information the Investigating Officer reached the spot i.e. Gali No. 10, Balaji Dharam Kanta, Anand Parbat where he found Dhananjay Mahto Vs. Javed Ansari & Ors. MACT No. 610/2021 Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 10 of 31 a Hydro Crane bearing No. HR26DT6458 and came to know that the injured has been shifted to Jeewan Mala Hospital.
Thereafter the Investigating Officer reached Jeewan Mala Hospital where he found the injured Dhananjay Mahto admitted but the injured could not give his statement due to severe pain. On 24.03.2021 the Investigating Officer reached RML Hospital and obtained the statement of the injured Dhananjay Mahto who informed that on 23.03.2021 while he was pushing a rickshaw on the asking of a rickshaw puller, a Crane bearing No. HR26DT 6458 came from behind and ran over his right foot. It was on the basis of statement of the injured Dhananjay Mahto that the FIR in the present case was registered. Before this Court/ Tribunal the injured/ petitioner Dhananjay Mahto has corroborated his first version given to the Investigating Officer. (18) Secondly, I may note that the Investigating Officer has not attached the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. along with the DAR due to which reason this Court had summoned the Police File containing the statement of various witnesses. It shows that the Investigating Officer had examined one Rajesh Kumar who is the employer of the injured Dhananjay Mahto. Rajesh Kumar informed the Investigating Officer that he is running a factory under the name and style of Rama Chemical and on 23.03.2021 at about 3:35 PM he had received a call regarding accident of Dhananjay on which he reached the spot where he found Dhananjay and the driver of crane namely Javed Ansari after which he and Javed Ansari took Dhananjay Mahto Vs. Javed Ansari & Ors. MACT No. 610/2021 Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 11 of 31 the injured to Jeewan Mala Hospital.
(19) Thirdly, the Site Plan of the spot of accident which is a part of the DAR shows the spot of accident at Point A which is on the extreme right side of the road/ Gali no.10, Anand Parbat. This site plan demolishes the version of the respondent no.1 Javed Ansari that the accident had taken place in the middle of the road. Rather, the site plan confirms the version of the petitioner that he was moving on the correct side of the road. (20) Fourthly, the Mechanical Inspection Report of the offending vehicle i.e. Crane bearing No. HR26DT6458 shows that there was no fresh damages on the same. However, it confirms that the horn was missing. The circumstances of the case shows that the respondent no.1 Javed Ansari was driving his crane without a Horn and while the petitioner Dhananjay Mahto was pushing a rickshaw, the crane came behind and ran over the right leg of the petitioner.
(21) Lastly, though the respondent no.1 has alleged negligence on the part of the petitioner, yet I note that the said negligence so attributed to the petitioner by the respondent no.1 is not borne out from the record. I may also note that the road where the accident had taken place is not a main road and is a lane without any divider. The petitioner had come to meet his mama at Anand Parbat and it was on the asking of a rickshaw puller that he started pushing the said rickshaw on the side of the road/ gali. Though the respondent no.1 claimed that the rickshaw of the petitioner broken down in the middle of the road, yet there is nothing on record to show that the rickshaw which the Dhananjay Mahto Vs. Javed Ansari & Ors. MACT No. 610/2021 Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 12 of 31 petitioner was pushing, belongs to the petitioner himself or that it broke down in the middle of the road.
(22) This being the background, I hereby hold that the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Crane bearing registration No. HR26DT6458 by the respondent no.1 Javed Ansari.
Nature of Injuries suffered by the petitioner and Disability, if any:
(23) Now coming to the aspect of injuries caused to the Petitioner Dhananjay Mahto and the Disability, if any, suffered by him. I have gone through the MLC of the petitioner Dhananjay Mahto which forms a part of the DAR. A perusal of the MLC shows that the injured Dhananjay Mahto was brought to Jeewan Mala Hospital, New Delhi on 23.03.2021 at 4:35 PM with alleged history of Road Traffic Accident as told by patient and ".... Brought By...." Rajesh. On local examination, there was a crush injury over his right foot with muscle and bone exposed. The original Discharge Summary which is Ex.PW1/C1 issued by RML Hospital shows that the injured was admitted in the said hospital on 24.03.2021 and was discharged on 12.05.2021. The injured was diagnosed with right sided fracture dislocation of multiple tarsals and ORIF with K wires fixation was done under CSE on 16.04.2021. The injuries sustained by the petitioner have been opined to be Grievous in Nature to which there is no dispute.
Dhananjay Mahto Vs. Javed Ansari & Ors. MACT No. 610/2021 Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 13 of 31 (24) In so far as the aspect of disability is concerned, the documents on record reveals that the petitioner had applied online for obtaining a Disability Certificate from the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India 'Swawlamban' i.e. swavlambancard.gov.in. Pursuant to the same a Disability Certificate was issued vide No. BR0910619900115792 according to which the petitioner is a case of Locometer Disability and the diagnosis in his case is Post Traumatic Stiffness Right Ankle Joint. As per the said Disability Certificate the petitioner has 15% (Fifteen Percent) Permanent Disability in relation to his right leg. There is no dispute to the above and hence, I hold that the petitioner had suffered Permanent Disability to the extent of 15%. Further, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is a labour by profession and the disability would affect his working capabilities, I hold that the percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation to disability shall be taken as Fifteen Percent (15%).
(25) In view of my above discussion and by application of the principles of Preponderance of Probabilities coupled with the fact that the respondent no.1 Javed Ansari has been made an accused in FIR No. 60/2021, PS Anand Parbat under Sections 279/338 IPC, I hereby hold that the petitioner/ injured namely Dhananjay Mahto had sustained 'grievous' injury in the road Dhananjay Mahto Vs. Javed Ansari & Ors. MACT No. 610/2021 Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 14 of 31 traffic accident which took place on 23.03.2021 at about 3:30 PM at Ram Dharam Kanta, Gali No.10, Anand Parbat, Delhi on account of rash and negligence driving of vehicle bearing no. HR26DT6458 driven by the respondent no.1 Javed Ansari. (26) Issue No.1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
Issue No.2: Whether the petitioner/ injured namely Dhananjay is entitled to the compensation? If yes, to what extent and from whom? (OPP) (27) Onus of proving the above issue was upon the petitioner. The case of the petitioner Dhananjay Mahto is that is a labour and was earning Rs.18,000/ per month. According to him, he had incurred a sum of Rs.1,50,000/ on his medical treatment; Rs.25,000/ to Rs.30,000/ on Conveyance; Rs.25,000/ to Rs.30,000/ on Special Diet and Rs.30,000/ to Rs.40,000/ on Attendant. In total the petitioner is claiming a total compensation to the tune of Rs.16,23,761/. (28) In so far the respondent no.3 Insurance Company is concerned they have not filed any Reasoned/ Legal Offer. (29) I have considered the arguments made before me and the documents on record. Coming first to the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner, I may observe that in his examination in chief the petitioner/ injured Dhananjay Mehto claims that he had incurred Rs.1,50,000/ on his medical treatment and has placed his reliance on the medical bills which are Ex.PW1/D1 Dhananjay Mahto Vs. Javed Ansari & Ors. MACT No. 610/2021 Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 15 of 31 to D24 details of which medical bills are as under:
S. Details of Bill Date Exhibit Amount No. No. in Rs.
1. GST Invoice issued by NACOF 12.05.2021 PW1/D1 124/ Pradhan Mantri Jan Aushadhi Kendra, RML Hospital, Delhi
2. GST Invoice issued by NACOF 12.05.2021 PW1/D2 280/ Pradhan Mantri Jan Aushadhi Kendra, RML Hospital, Delhi
3. GST Invoice issued by New 23.04.2021 PW1/D3 650/ Delhi Medicos, Old Rama Krishna Marg, Delhi
4. GST Invoice issued by Raj 05.04.2021 PW1/D4 467/ Kamal Chemists, RML Hospital, Delhi
5. GST Invoice issued by Jeewan 23.03.2021 PW1/D5 670/ Hospital Chemist, New Rohtak Road, Delhi
6. GST Invoice issued by New 27.03.2021 PW1/D6 70/ Delhi Medicos, Old Rama Krishna Marg, Delhi
7. GST Invoice issued by Raj 20.02.2021 PW1/D7 128/ Kamal Chemists, RML Hospital, Delhi
8. Bill issued by Ganesh 31.03.2021 PW1/D8 6,000/ Diagnostic & Imaging Centre Pvt. Ltd. Rohini, Delhi
9. Receipt issued by Jeewan Mala 23.03.2021 PW1/D9 1,210/ Hospital, Rohtak Road, Delhi
10. GST Invoice issued by Krishna 03.04.2021 PW1/D10 287/ Medusurg, Old R.K. Ashram Marg, New Delhi
11. GST Invoice issued by Achieva 27.04.2021 PW1/D11 12,100/ Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Shakarpur Main Market Road, New Delhi
12. Invoice issued by AOne 16.04.2021 PW1/D12 4,200/ Surgical Solutions, B30, Somdutt Chamber15, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi Dhananjay Mahto Vs. Javed Ansari & Ors. MACT No. 610/2021 Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 16 of 31
13. Bill issued by Kalyani XRay 01.08.2021 PW1/D13 800/ Centre, Line Bazar, Purnia, Bihar
14. GST Invoice issued by Nirmala 14.07.2021 PW1/D14 439/ Medical Agency, Purnia, Bihar
15. GST Invoice issued by Nirmala 16.05.2021 PW1/D15 2,597/ Medical Agency, Purnia, Bihar
16. Cash Memo issued issued by 03.07.2021 PW1/D16 4,808/ Nisha Medical Agency, Purnia, Bihar
17. Cash Memo issued by Sontha 28.05.2021 PW1/D17 290/ Medical & Surgical, Purnia, Bihar
18. Cash Memo issued by Sontha 24.06.2021 PW1/D18 290/ Medical & Surgical, Purnia, Bihar
19. GST Invoice issued by Nirmala 24.05.2021 PW1/D19 2,245/ Medical Agency, Purnia, Bihar
20. GST Invoice issued by AX7 16.06.2021 PW1/D20 240/ Medical & Surgical Store, Purnia, Bihar
21. GST Invoice issued by AX7 05.06.2021 PW1/D21 201/ Medical & Surgical Store, Purnia, Bihar
22. GST Invoice issued by Purnea 02.06.2021 PW1/D22 581/ Medicos, Purena, Bihar
23. GST Invoice issued by Abhi 10.06.2021 PW1/D23 221/ Drugs, Purnia, Bihar
24. GST Invoice issued by Royal 16.05.2021 PW1/D24 11,272/ Medico & Surgical Store, Line Bazar Chowk, Purnia, Bihar Total 50,170/ (30) I have gone through the above bills and I may note that this Court/ Tribunal has already observed that the injuries suffered by the petitioner Dhananjay Mahto a permanent resident of Purnia, Bihar are Grievous in nature. There is no dispute Dhananjay Mahto Vs. Javed Ansari & Ors. MACT No. 610/2021 Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 17 of 31 with regard to the above bills and the treatment taken by the petitioner nor any evidence to the contrary has come on record.
Accordingly, I hereby hold that the petitioner is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.50,170/ towards medical expenses.
(31) In so far as the Special Diet expenses are concerned, the petitioner has not placed on record any bill or document to prove the same nor the Discharge Summary show that the petitioner was advised any Special Diet. However, a notional sum of Rs.10,000/ is being awarded to the petitioner. (32) Coming next to the Conveyance Charges, again the petitioner has not placed on record any document in the form of bill/ invoice issued by the Transporter to show that he had incurred any amount towards conveyance. However, keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner a notional sum of Rs.10,000/ is being awarded.
(33) In so far as the Nursing/ Attendant Charges are concerned, the petitioner has not placed on record any document showing the amount incurred by him towards Attendant nor he has provided the details of the Attendant whose services he had availed. I, therefore, hold that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any amount towards Nursing/ Attendant Charges. (34) Now coming to the aspect of loss of income, the case of the petitioner Dhananjay Mahto is that he totally illiterate and is a labour by profession and at the time of accident he was earning Rs.18,000/ per month. In this regard, I note that it is Dhananjay Mahto Vs. Javed Ansari & Ors. MACT No. 610/2021 Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 18 of 31 admitted by the petitioner that he has not placed on record any document to show that he was earning Rs.18,000/ per month. Further, it is evident from the Financial Statement of the petitioner that he had come to Delhi for search of work about 10 to 15 days prior to the accident. On specific Court Question the petitioner has explained that prior to the accident he was residing at Palanpur, Gujarat where he was working as labour and was earning Rs.15,000/ per month but I may note that he has not placed on record any document to confirm the same. It is apparent from the material on record that the petitioner Dhananjay Mahto is a permanent resident of Purnea, Bihar and had come to Delhi in search of work. This being the background, the accident having taken place in Delhi and there being no document to show the income of the petitioner at the time of accident, I hold that the minimum wages for unskilled worker prevailing in Bihar at the time of accident on 23.03.2021 i.e. Rs.7,592/ (in terms of notification No. 5/M.V.403/07 L&R 2619 dated 21.09.2020) shall be considered as income of the petitioner. Further, keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, I hold that the petitioner shall be entitled to the loss of income for three months i.e. 7,592 × 3 = 22,776/.
(35) In so far as the aspect of loss of future income on account of the Disability is concerned, this Tribunal has already held that the percentage of loss of earning capacity of the petitioner in relation to disability shall be taken as Fifteen Dhananjay Mahto Vs. Javed Ansari & Ors. MACT No. 610/2021 Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 19 of 31 Percent (15%). As per the copy of Aadhar Card, the date of birth of the injured/ petitioner Dhananjay Mahto is 01.01.1990 and hence, as on the date of accident i.e. 23.03.2021 the injured was aged 31 years. Therefore, the Multiplier of Sixteen (16) is taken for purposes of calculating the loss of income of the petitioner and the Future Prospects at the rate of 40% shall be added. In view of the above, the loss of Future Income on account of Disability is calculated as under:
40% of 7,592 = 3,037/
7,592 + 3,037 = 10,629/
10,629/ x 16 x 12 x 15 / 100
= Rs.3,06,115/
(36) I may further note that the petitioner has already settled
the criminal case for a sum of Rs.30,000/ with the respondent no.1 Javed Ansari before the Mediation Cell vide proceedings dated 23.09.2022 which are Ex.CW1/1. Pursuant to the same the petitioner has already received a sum of Rs.15,000/ from the respondent no.1. Therefore, the said amount of Rs.30,000/ is liable to be adjusted in the compensation amount so awarded by this Tribunal.
(37) Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the material on record, and the settled principles and guidelines governing the injury cases like the present one, the compensation is being derived in the present case as under:
Dhananjay Mahto Vs. Javed Ansari & Ors. MACT No. 610/2021 Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 20 of 31 NAME OF HEAD AMOUNT (in Rupees) Expenditure on Treatment 50,170/ Expenditure on Special Diet 10,000/ Expenditure on Conveyance 10,000/ Loss of Income (three months) 7,592 × 3 = 22,776/ Mental & Physical Shock, Pain & 40,000/ Suffering Loss of future income on account of 3,06,115/ Disability Total 4,39,061/ Less Rs.30,000/ towards settlement 4,39,061 - 30,000 = before mediation cell 4,09,061/ Round off: 4,10,000/ (38) In so far as the quantum of interest is concerned, I note that interest @ 9% per annum was awarded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy reported in 2012 ACJ 48 (SC). In the interest of justice, it is held that claimant shall be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. from 09.08.2021 till realization.
Disbursement:
(39) The Financial Statement of the petitioner Dhananjay Mahto was recorded by this Court/ Tribunal on 03.11.2022.
Keeping in view the financial condition of the petitioner, I hereby direct that on realization of the award amount, a sum of Rs.40,000/ plus entire interest amount be released to the Dhananjay Mahto Vs. Javed Ansari & Ors. MACT No. 610/2021 Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 21 of 31 petitioner/ claimant Dhananjay Mahto and the balance amount of Rs.3,70,000/ (Rupees Three Lacs Ten Thousand only) shall be put in Thirty Seven monthly fixed deposits in his name in MACAD account of equal amount of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 37 months respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in his saving account maintained in a nationalized bank situated near his residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM card. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to him only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account situated near his residence with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if it has been issued the said ATM Card has been withdrawn and shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal.
(40) The above FDRs shall be prepared with the following conditions as enumerated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors.:
(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be an individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
Dhananjay Mahto Vs. Javed Ansari & Ors. MACT No. 610/2021 Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 22 of 31
(ii) 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 claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimants. 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 claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other branch of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque books and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and the claimant shall produced the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court for compliance.
(41) In compliance of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award in the prescribed FormatXVI is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
1. Date of Accident: 23.03.2021
2. Name of the Injured: Dhananjay Mahto Dhananjay Mahto Vs. Javed Ansari & Ors. MACT No. 610/2021 Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 23 of 31
3. Age of the Injured: 31 Years
4. Occupation of Injured: Labour
5. Income of the Injured: 7,592/ (Minimum wages in Bihar)
6. Nature of Injury: Grievous
7. Medical Treatment taken Jeewan Mala Hospital & by the injured: RML Hospital, Delhi
8. Period of Hospitalization: 23.03.2021 to 12.05.2021
9. Whether any permanent 15% Permanent disability? If yes, give Disability details:
10. COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION Sr. Heads Awarded by the Claims No. Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on Treatment 50,160/ (As per bills)
ii) Expenditure on Conveyance 10,000/ (Notional) (no document)
(iii) Expenditure on Special Diet 10,000/ (Notional) (no document)
(iv) Cost of Nursing/ attendant (no Nil document)
(v) Loss of earning capacity Nil
(vi) Loss of income (three months) 7,592 × 3 = 22,776/
(vii) Any other loss which may Nil require any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life Dhananjay Mahto Vs. Javed Ansari & Ors. MACT No. 610/2021 Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 24 of 31
12. Non Pecuniary Loss
(i) Compensation for mental and 40,000/ physical shock (Notional)
(ii) Pain and Sufferings
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Nil
(iv) Disfiguration Nil
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Nil hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability 15%
assessed and nature of Permanent Disability
disability as permanent or
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Nil
expectation of life span on
account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning 15%
capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - 3,06,115/
(income x % earning capacity x
Multiplier)
14. Total 4,39,061/
Less Rs.30,000/ towards 4,39,061 - 30,000 =
settlement before mediation 4,09,061/ cell Round off: 4,10,000/
15. INTEREST AWARDED 6%
16. Interest amount upto the date of Rs.34,609/ award (1 years, 4 Months & 27 Days) Dhananjay Mahto Vs. Javed Ansari & Ors. MACT No. 610/2021 Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 25 of 31
17. Total amount including Interest Rs.4,44,609/
18. Award amount released As mentioned in para no. 39
19. Award amount kept in FDRs As mentioned in para no. 39
20. Mode of disbursement of the As mentioned in para award amount of the no. 39 claimant(s)
21. Next date for compliance of the 10.02.2023 award Liability:
(42) In so far as the liability to pay the award amount is concerned, it is evident from the record that the offending vehicle i.e. Crane bearing No. HR26DT6458 was being driven by Javed Ansari (Respondent No.1) and owned by Yogesh Kumar (Respondent no.2) whereas the offending vehicle was insured with National Insurance Company Limited (Respondent No.3), therefore, all the respondents shall be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. However, since the vehicle was duly insured with respondent no.3 i.e. National Insurance Company Limited as on the day of accident, it is respondent no.3 National Insurance Company Limited who is ultimately held liable to indemnify the insurance and to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner under the statutory liability.
Dhananjay Mahto Vs. Javed Ansari & Ors. MACT No. 610/2021 Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 26 of 31 (43) Issue No.2 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
(44) Since the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no.3 National Insurance Company Limited therefore, the respondent no.3 is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.4,10,000/ (Rupees Four Lacs Ten Thousand only) along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 09.08.2021 with the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the claimant failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days.
(45) A copy of this judgment be sent to the respondent No.3 i.e. National Insurance Company Limited for compliance within the time granted. Respondent No.3 National Insurance Company Limited is further directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days of the deposit with a copy to the Claimant and his counsel namely Sh. A.K. Mishra Advocate, Seat No. 35, P.S. Rathee Block, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (Mobile No. 9717056211).
(46) Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on 10.02.2023 in the event of nonreceipt/deposit of the Dhananjay Mahto Vs. Javed Ansari & Ors. MACT No. 610/2021 Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 27 of 31 compensation amount within the time granted.
(47) Copy of the award be also sent to the court of concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA).
(48) File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 06.01.2023 PO, MACT01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Dhananjay Mahto Vs. Javed Ansari & Ors. MACT No. 610/2021 Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 28 of 31 FORM - XVII COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD 1 Date of Accident 23.03.2021 2 Date of filing of FormI - First Not applicable - the accident Accident Report (FAR) having taken place before implementation of New Scheme for Motor Accident Claims Formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court 3 Date of delivery of FormII to Not applicable - the accident the victim(s) having taken place before implementation of New Scheme for Motor Accident Claims Formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court 4 Date of receipt of FormIII Not applicable - the accident from the Driver having taken place before implementation of New Scheme for Motor Accident Claims Formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court 5 Date of receipt of FormIV from Not applicable - the accident the Owner having taken place before implementation of New Scheme for Motor Accident Claims Formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court 6 Date of filing of the FormV - Not applicable - the accident Interim Accident Report (IAR) having taken place before implementation of New Scheme for Motor Accident Claims Formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court 7 Date of receipt of FormVIA Not applicable - the accident and Form VIB from the having taken place before Victim(s) implementation of New Scheme for Motor Accident Claims Formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court 8 Date of filing of FormVIII - 09.08.2021 Detail Accident Report (DAR) 9 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, No whether any action/direction warranted?
Dhananjay Mahto Vs. Javed Ansari & Ors. MACT No. 610/2021 Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 29 of 31 10 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the Not provided by the Insurance Insurance Company Company 11 Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company Yes admitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the No Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13 Date of response of the No Reasoned/ Legal Offer given by claimant(s) to the offer of the the Insurance Company Insurance Company.
14 Date of award 06.01.2023 15 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open savings bank Yes account(s) near their place of residence?
16 Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to 09.08.2021 open Savings Bank Account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN card and Aadhaar Card and the direction to the bank not to issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17 Date on which the claimant(s) 03.11.2022 produced the passbook of their PAN Card No. of the claimant is savings bank account(s) near the GXTPM7736P place of their residence The claimant did not produce his alongwith the endorsement, bank passbook with necessary PAN card and Aadhaar Card? endorsement 18 Permanent residential address of As per Award the claimant(s).
Dhananjay Mahto Vs. Javed Ansari & Ors. MACT No. 610/2021 Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 30 of 31 19 Whether the claimant(s) savings Details not provided by the bank account(s) is near their claimant.
place of residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s) were examined at the time of passing Yes.
of the Award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
(Dr. KAMINI LAU) PO, MACT01 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/ 06.01.2023 Dhananjay Mahto Vs. Javed Ansari & Ors. MACT No. 610/2021 Award dated 06.01.2023 Page No. 31 of 31