Delhi District Court
Tribhuwan Ram vs . Rupesh Kumar on 14 November, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANDEEP GARG,
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE
COURTS, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
TRIBHUWAN RAM VS. RUPESH KUMAR
PANDIT & ORS.
MACP NO. 117/16 & DAR No. 410/15
Sh. Tribhuwan Ram
S/o Sh. Zokhu Ram,
R/o Jhuggi No. A-175,
R.P.F. Line Daya Basti,
Delhi-110007.
..........Petitioner/injured
Versus
1. Sh. Rupesh Kumar Pandit
S/o Sh. Amod Pandit,
R/o C-26, Ambedkar Place, Nangloi,
Delhi.
2. Sh. Ram Nand Kumar
S/o Sh. Ram Dev Pandit,
R/o S-175/372, Rangpuri,
Pahari Nagal, New Delhi-110037.
3. Ms. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
C-1, IIIrd Floor, New Krishna Park,
Beside Janakpuri West Metro Station,
New Delhi. .....Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 02.12.2015
Date of filing of claim petition : 21.03.2016
Date of framing of issues : 11.01.2016
Date of concluding arguments : 14.11.2022
Date of decision : 14.11.2022
AWARD / JUDGMENT
1. The claim for compensation in the present claim MACP No. 117/16 & DAR No. 410/15 Page 1 of 21 petition relates to injuries and permanent disability sustained by petitioner in a road accident that took place on 04.06.2015, at about 5 am, on Ridge Road, Near Gate No. 2, Buddha Garden, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi, regarding which an FIR bearing no. 136/2015, under Sections 279/337 IPC was registered at PS Chanakyapuri. The offending vehicle involved in this case is a taxi bearing registration no. DL-1T- 6008, which at the relevant time of accident was being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3.
2. Succinctly put, facts of the case as per claim petition are that on the aforesaid date, the petitioner went to receive his brother-in-law (saddhu) namely Sh. Prem Chand at IGI Airport. After receiving Sh. Prem Chand at IGI Airport, the petitioner along with brother-in-law had left for his residence in a hired taxi bearing registration No. DL-1T-6008 which was being driven by respondent no. 1 at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. The petitioner and his brother-in-law told respondent no. 1 to drive at a moderate speed and diligently, but respondent no. 1 ignored their advice. When they reached near Ridge Road, Near Gate No. 2, Buddha Garden, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi, all of a sudden, the offending taxi hit a tree planted on the side of the road with great force, due to which the petitioner along with his brother-in-law sustained injuries on their persons. The petitioner and his brother-in-law were taken to Dr. RML Hospital, where their MLCs were prepared.
3. Respondents no. 1 and 2 have not filed any reply / written statement either to the DAR or to the claim petition.
MACP No. 117/16 & DAR No. 410/15 Page 2 of 214. The respondent no. 3/Insurance Company has filed reply/written statement wherein it is averred that respondent no. 1 was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. The offending vehicle stood insured with it in the name of respondent no. 2 for the period 27.05.2015 to 26.05.2016.
5. It is pertinent to mention that vide order dated 11.01.2016, DAR No. 410/15 qua the petitioner Sh. Tribhuwan & DAR No. 411/15 qua Sh. Prem Chand arising out of the same accident were consolidated for the purpose of trial and DAR No. 410/15 was treated as a lead case for recording of evidence. Thereafter, the present claim petition bearing No. MACP No. 117/16 qua the petitioner Sh. Tribhuwan and MACP No. 118/16 qua Sh. Prem Chand were filed before this tribunal and their respective DARs were directed to be clubbed with the claim petitions. On the same day, the following consolidated issues were framed :-
1. Whether Sh. Tribhuwan (petitioner in Suit No. D-410/15) and Sh. Prem Chand (petitioner in the Suit No. D-411/15) sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on 04.06.2015 at about 05.00 am, Ridge Road, Near Gate No. 2, Budha Garden, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DL-1T-6008 being driven by respondent no.
1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no.3 ? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
6. The Tribunal has heard arguments advanced by Ld. Counsels for the parties and has also been perused the MACP No. 117/16 & DAR No. 410/15 Page 3 of 21 record with their able assistance. The findings on the aforesaid issues are recorded hereinafter:
ISSUE No. 11. Whether Sh. Tribhuwan (petitioner in Suit No. D-410/15) and Sh. Prem Chand (petitioner in the Suit No. D-411/15) sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on 04.06.2015 at about 05.00 am, Ridge Road, Near Gate No. 2, Budha Garden, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DL-1T-6008 being driven by respondent no.
1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no.3 ? OPP.
7. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. In order to prove negligence of respondent no.1, the petitioner himself deposed as PW-1 and has filed his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW-1/A wherein he has mentioned the mode and manner of accident as averred in the petition and DAR, the injuries sustained by him and treatment taken thereafter. He has placed reliance upon the DAR as Ex. PW-1/6. Absolutely, no cross-examination on the aspect of negligence has been conducted on behalf of the respondents.
8. It is explicit from the testimony of PW-1 that occurrence of accident has not been disputed and the testimony of the witness in this regard has remained un- controverted. Nothing material could be elicited from the cross-examination of PW-1 to disbelieve or discard his testimony on any aspect. The testimony of PW-1 has been duly corroborated by the DAR filed by IO as Ex. PW1/6. Further, it has not been disputed that respondent no.1 has been charge-sheeted in the aforesaid FIR for offences punishable under Sections 279/338 IPC, 3/181 of M.V. Act MACP No. 117/16 & DAR No. 410/15 Page 4 of 21 for rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 has observed that filing of charge sheet against the driver prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It has been further observed that even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
9. Pertinently, respondent no. 1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to rebut his involvement in the aforesaid accident, which he has failed to do. Therefore, an adverse inference is drawn against the respondent no. 1/driver in terms of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
10. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters, the facts are required to be established on preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt, as are required in a criminal prosecution. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported as (2009) 13 SC 530 in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, wherein it has been observed that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants and the claimants were merely to establish their MACP No. 117/16 & DAR No. 410/15 Page 5 of 21 case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.
11. In view of foregoing reasons, it is held that oral evidence led on record by the petitioner on this issue is duly substantiated by the documentary evidence i.e. charge-sheet and DAR. Thus, it stands established by preponderance of probabilities that the aforesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing no. DL-1T-6008 which was being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3 at the time of accident. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO.2 Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
12. As the issue no.1 has been proved in favour of the petitioner, he has become entitled to be compensated for the injuries suffered by him in the accident, but the computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided.
13. In terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 the compensation which is to be awarded by this tribunal is required to be 'just'. In injury cases, a claimant is entitled to two different kinds of compensation i.e. pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary damages, which is being assessed hereinafter under the following heads as:-
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses:
14. The petitioner stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and has tendered on record his discharge summary as MACP No. 117/16 & DAR No. 410/15 Page 6 of 21 Ex. PW1/2 (colly) which reflects that the petitioner was admitted in Dr. RML Hospital on 04.06.2015 and was discharged on 08.06.2015. Secondly, the petitioner was again admitted in the said hospital on 08.06.2015 and was discharged on 23.06.2015. Thirdly, he was admitted on 31.12.2015 and discharged on 04.01.2016. As per discharge summary, Ex. PW1/2 (colly), the petitioner was diagnosed with tibial plateau fracture (schatzker type VI) on his right leg with severe soft tissue injury, multiple abrasions on face, CLW in left pinna of ear and other injuries all over his body. The petitioner had undergone LTSP insertion and fixation on BB splint on his right leg.
15. The petitioner in his affidavit, Ex. PW1/A has tendered on record his original medical bills as Ex. PW1/5 (colly) which are to the tune of Rs. 10,435/-. During cross- examination, he has denied the suggestion that he has produced forged and fabricated medical bills and the same do not correspond with the doctor's prescription. Needless to say, the insurance company has not led any evidence to establish that the said bills do not relate to injuries sustained by the petitioner in the aforesaid accident. Thus, the testimony of PW-1 that he had spent the aforesaid amount towards medical expenses has remained un-rebutted. In the absence of any evidence adduced by respondents, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-1 that he has spent the aforesaid amount towards medical expenses. Hence, he is held entitled to Rs. 10,435/- towards his medical expenses.
(ii) Loss of actual earnings:
16. The petitioner in his affidavit, Ex. PW1/A has MACP No. 117/16 & DAR No. 410/15 Page 7 of 21 claimed that he was doing his own business/dealing in plastic selling and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. During cross examination, he admitted that he has no documentary proof to show that he was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. Since the employment and income of the petitioner has not been established on record, the minimum wages of unskilled person are taken into account as per rates notified by GNCT of Delhi, which were Rs. 9,048/- per month at the time of accident. Keeping in view the duration of treatment of petitioner, the fact that he was hospitalized thrice and had sustained fracture for which, he was operated upon, this tribunal considers it just and reasonable to compensate him for loss of earning equivalent to a period of four months. Therefore, under this head, he is being awarded an amount of Rs. 36,192/- (Rs. 9,048 X 4 months).
(iii) Loss of future earnings due to disability:
17. As per disability certificate dated 23.03.2019, Ex. PW3/A received from Dr. RML Hospital, the petitioner is a case of road traffic accident with fracture of proximal tibia right side and his permanent physical disability is 16% in relation to his right lower limb. In order to prove the disability certificate Ex. PW3/A, the petitioner has examined Dr. O.P. Meena, Ortho Surgeon, Dr. RML Hospital as PW3.
18. In response to court question, PW3 deposed that due to the above disability, the petitioner can though walk in a normal manner, but he will have difficulty in walking fast as well as running, climbing stairs and even standing on the affected leg. He further deposed that the patient can stand on his both legs for long duration. During cross examination, he MACP No. 117/16 & DAR No. 410/15 Page 8 of 21 deposed that the petitioner will have difficulty in standing on affected right limb. He further deposed that the said disability of petitioner is also a functional disability in relation to right lower limb.
19. The law with regard to grant of compensation due to permanent disability and determination of functional disability etc. was well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343, wherein it has been held as under :-
"10. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of `loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in MACP No. 117/16 & DAR No. 410/15 Page 9 of 21 service, but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may............."
20. After considering the legal position discussed above and the categorical testimony of PW-3, the functional disability of the petitioner is assessed as 10%. To apply the multiplier, it is necessary to ascertain the age of the petitioner. The petitioner has tendered on record copy of his Aadhar card as Ex. PW1/1, as per which the year of his birth is mentioned as 1970. The petitioner has also placed on record copy of his PAN card, as per which his date of birth is 15.01.1970. Hence, going by these documents, his age, as on 04.06.2015 i.e. date of accident was 45 years, 4 months and 20 days. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014 dated 31.10.2017 and the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harsh Wardhan & Ors., MAC App. No. 521/2008 decided on 20.07.2017, the nearest multiplier of 14 is applicable for MACP No. 117/16 & DAR No. 410/15 Page 10 of 21 calculating the loss of future earnings of the petitioner arising out of above permanent disability.
21. The petitioner is also entitled to 25% future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.(Supra) as he was aged between 40 to 50 years at the time of accident and his job was not permanent in nature. Thus, the loss of future earnings caused to the petitioner due to his permanent disability comes to Rs. 1,90,008/- (Rs. 9,048/- X 12 X 14 X 125/100 X 10/100).
(iv) Mental and Physical Shock, Pain and Sufferings & Loss of Amenities:
22. As stated above, the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries and permanent disability on account of the accident. Though, it is not possible to exactly compensate him for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which he had actually suffered because of the above injuries and disability, but an effort has to be made to compensate him for the same in a just and reasonable manner. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the injuries suffered by the petitioner and duration of the treatment taken by him etc., an amount of Rs.
25,000/- each is being awarded to him towards mental and physical shock & for pain and sufferings. Further, an amount of Rs.25,000/- is also awarded to him towards the loss of amenities suffered by him during the said period of his treatment. Thus, he is awarded total amount of Rs.75,000/- under this head.
(v) Conveyance, Special Diet and
Attendant Charges:
MACP No. 117/16 & DAR No. 410/15 Page 11 of 21
23. The petitioner in his affidavit Ex. PW1/A has claimed that he had spent Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- each towards special diet and conveyance. During cross examination, he admitted that he has no documentary proof to show that he had incurred the expenses of Rs. 15,000/- on special diet and conveyance. Still this tribunal can very well take note of the requirement of conveyance for petitioner for frequently visiting the hospitals and doctors in connection with his treatment and special diet for his early recovery from the injuries suffered because of the accident. Hence, an amount of Rs. 15,000/- each is awarded to the petitioner towards conveyance and special diet.
24. The petitioner in his affidavit has also claimed that he had hired an attendant as he was not in a position to do his daily routine work during the course of his treatment. The petitioner remained hospitalized thrice and LTSP insertion and fixation was carried out. The petitioner would have been immobile for about four months during his hospitalization and during period of recuperation post discharge. He required assistance of an attendant or some other family member for performing routine activities including bathing / sponging, urinating, passing stools, having meals, beverages and medicines etc. Hence, an amount of Rs. 40,000/- (Rs. 10,000/- per month) is being awarded towards the attendant charges. Therefore, the petitioner is held entitled to an amount of Rs. 70,000/- under this head.
Issue No.3/Relief:
25. In view of foregoing reasons, the petitioner is thus awarded a sum of Rs. 3,81,635/- (Rupees Three Lakhs MACP No. 117/16 & DAR No. 410/15 Page 12 of 21 Eighty One Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Five only) along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of DAR till the date of deposit. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of this inquiry, shall be liable to be excluded from the award amount.
RELEASE:
26 Out of amount awarded, 50% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the form of FDR for a period of two years. The amount of FDR, on maturity, be released in his savings account no. 34928100004434 maintained with Bank of Baroda, Shastri Nagar, Delhi and the remaining 50% amount is directed to be released to him in the above said account, which can be withdrawn by him.
27. The disbursement to the petitioner is, however, subject to addition of future interest till deposit proportionately and also deduction of proportionate tax on the interest amount or amount of interim award, if any, to/from his share.
28. The bank shall not permit any joint names to be added in the savings bank account of petitioner i.e. the bank account of petitioner shall be individual account and not a joint account.
29. The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the UCO Bank, PHC, New Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by the said MACP No. 117/16 & DAR No. 410/15 Page 13 of 21 bank to the petitioner and the above amount shall be released in account of petitioner by the Manager, UCO Bank, PHC, New Delhi through RTGS/NEFT/or any other electronic mode.
30. The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the aforementioned savings bank account of the petitioner.
31. No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the MACAD without permission of the Tribunal.
32. The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the petitioner. 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 petitioner so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the petitioner from any other branch of the bank.
33. 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.
34. It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause above.
LIABILITY:
MACP No. 117/16 & DAR No. 410/15 Page 14 of 2135. It is the case of R-3/Insurance Company that R- 1/driver was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and therefore, he was chargesheeted under Section 3/181 of the M.V. Act as well. Respondents no. 1 and 2 did not controvert the said claim by filing a written statement or adducing any evidence.
36. A perusal of charge-sheet filed by the IO shows that Section 3/181 M.V. Act was invoked against respondent no. 1 due to non possession/production of a valid driving license. Therefore, a presumption has to be drawn that the offending Taxi was being plied without a valid driving license. Hence, it is held that the respondent no. 1 was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Giriraj Vs. Viniti Kohli & Anr., MACA No. 639/19, decided on 23.09.2019, R-3/Insurance Company is held entitled to a right of recovery of the awarded amount from R-2, i.e. owner of the offending vehicle. Therefore, R-3 is first liable to deposit the awarded amount with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of DAR either by way of crossed cheque/DD in name of the petitioner or by way of deposit in any e-form in bank account being maintained in the above said bank in name of this tribunal within 30 days from today, failing which it will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay. In case even after passage of 90 days from today, R-3 fails to deposit this compensation with interest, in that event R-3 shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9 % per annum for the period of delay beyond 90 days MACP No. 117/16 & DAR No. 410/15 Page 15 of 21 from today and in light of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of R-3 with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.
37. The respondent no. 3 shall inform the petitioner and his counsel through registered post that the awarded amount has been deposited so as to facilitate them to collect the same.
38. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of charge. Ahlmad is directed to send a copy of the award to the Court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Judgment titled as Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. passed in FAO no.842/2003 dated 12.12.2014.
39. Further, Naib Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 08.01.2021.
40. The particulars of Form-XVII of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, in terms of directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.(supra) on 08.01.2021, are as under:-
1. Date of the accident 04.06.2015
2. Date of filing of Form I- First 02.12.2015 Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to 02.12.2015 the victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III 02.12.2015 from the Driver MACP No. 117/16 & DAR No. 410/15 Page 16 of 21
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the owner 02.12.2015
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- 02.12.2015 Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA 02.12.2015 and Form VIB from the Victim
(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII- 02.12.2015 Detailed Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or No deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Not furnished Designated Officer by the Insurance Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer Yes of the Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or No deficiencies on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the 11.01.2016 claimant(s) of the offer of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 14.11.2022
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 open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and 14.03.2018 produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque MACP No. 117/16 & DAR No. 410/15 Page 17 of 21 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) produced the passbook of their savings bank account 29.08.2018 near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address R/o Jhuggi No. of the Claimant(s) A-175, RPF Line, Daya Basti, Delhi-
110007
19. Whether the claimant(s) Yes savings bank account(s) is near his 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?
41. File be consigned to Record room after completion of necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 06.01.2023.
Announced in the open court (Sandeep Garg) on 14.11.2022 PO, MACT, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts Complex, New Delhi Encl: The summary of computation in the prescribed format MACP No. 117/16 & DAR No. 410/15 Page 18 of 21 SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD IN INJURY CASES IN FORM XVI
1. Date of accident : 04.06.2015
2. Name of the injured : Sh. Tribhuwan Ram
3. Age of the injured : 45 years
4. Occupation of the injured: Minimum wages for unskilled worker in Delhi.
5. Income of the injured : Rs. 9,048/- per month
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured : Dr. RML Hospital
8. Period of hospitalization : As discussed above
9. Whether any permanent disability?: 10%.
10. Computation of Compensation Sr.No. Hea Amount ds awarded
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 10,435/-
(ii) Expenditure on Rs. 15,000/-
conveyance
(iii) Expenditure on special Rs. 15,000/-
diet
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs.40,000/-
(v) Loss of earning capacity Nil
(vi) Loss of Income Nil
(vii) Any other loss which Nil
may require any special
treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his
life
12. Non-pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for Rs. 25,000/-
mental and physical
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/-
MACP No. 117/16 & DAR No. 410/15 Page 19 of 21
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.25,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration Nil
(v) Loss of marriage Nil
prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, Nil
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 10%
assessed and nature of permanet
disability as permanent physical
or temporary impairment
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss Nil
of expectation of life
span on account of
disability.
(iii) Percentage of loss 10%
of earning permanent
relation to disability physical
impairment
(iv) Loss of future income Rs. 1,90,008/-
14. Total Compensation Rs. 3,81,635/-
15. Interest Awarded 7.5% p.a. from
date of filing of
DAR till deposit in
30 days and 9 %
after 90 days.
16. Interest amount up to the Rs. 1,98,917/-
date of award
17. Total amount including Rs. 5,80,552/-
interest
18. Award amount released 50% of awarded amount
19. Award amount kept in 50% of the FDRs/ Motor awarded MACP No. 117/16 & DAR No. 410/15 Page 20 of 21 Accident Claims amount Annuity Deposit (MACAD)
20. Mode of disbursement Through bank of the award amount to the claimant (s)
21. Next date for 06.01.2023 compliance of the award (Sandeep Garg) PO, MACT, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts Complex, New Delhi / 14.11.2022 MACP No. 117/16 & DAR No. 410/15 Page 21 of 21