Delhi District Court
Arti Gupta vs . Sanjeev Alipuria & Anr. on 30 August, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANJUSHA WADHWA
PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
ARTI GUPTA VS. SANJEEV ALIPURIA & ANR.
MACP NO. 06/2016
Smt. Arti Gupta
W/o Sh. Ashwani Kumar Gupta,
R/o 83-B, Police Colony, Sector-12, R.K. Puram,
New Delhi-110022.
......Petitioner/Injured
Versus
1. Sh. Sanjeev Alipuria
S/o Sh. Hemraj Alipuria,
R/o 107, Army Welfare Housing Organization,
Sector-28, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.
2. M/s TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Lotus Towers, Ist Floor, Community Centre,
New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110025.
.....Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 08.12.2015
Date of filing of claim petition : 13.01.2016
Date of framing of issues : 13.01.2016
Date of concluding arguments : 16.07.2022
Date of decision : 30.08.2022
MACP NO. 06/16 Page 1 of 22
AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. The claim for compensation in the present petition relates to injuries and permanent disability suffered by the petitioner in a road accident that took place on 01.09.2015, at about 10.20 am, infront of Kothi No. 4, turn of Krishna Menon Lane, Akbar Road, New Delhi, regarding which an FIR bearing no. 102/15, under Sections 279/337 IPC was registered at PS Tughlak Road. The offending vehicle involved in this case is a Wagon R car bearing registration no. PB-11AY-2641, which at the relevant time of accident was being driven and owned by respondent no.1 and insured with respondent no. 2.
2. Succinctly put, facts of the case as per claim petition are that on the aforesaid date, Sh. Ashwani Kumar, husband of the petitioner was going to his office on scooter bearing registration No. DL-6SAP-8382 and the petitioner was sitting as a pillion rider. When they reached in front of Kothi No. 4, turn of Krishna Menon Lane, all of a sudden, one Wagon R car bearing registration No. PB-11AY-2641, which was being driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner and in contravention of traffic rules had hit his scooter due to which the scooter got disbalanced and they fell down on the road and sustained injuries. It is further stated that after the accident, the petitioner along with her husband was removed to JPNA Trauma Centre, New Delhi where her MLC was prepared.
3. The respondent no.1 has filed written statement/reply wherein it is stated that the accident was caused due to sole negligence of Ashwani Kumar and a false case was registered against the respondent no. 1 by the petitioner in collusion with local police as Sh. Ashwani Kumar himself is employed with Delhi Police. It is further stated that the respondent no. 1 was going from Akbar Road to Rajaji Marg through Krishna Menon Lane MACP NO. 06/16 Page 2 of 22 and as he turned towards right side, he saw a two-wheeler scooter with a pillion rider without helmet coming from left to right across the road on Akbar Road. It is further stated that the respondent no. 1 stopped his car to enable the scooter to pass through and once the scooterist went by, the respondent no. 1 crossed the road and heard loud noise, whereafter, he parked his car on Krishna Menon Lane and saw the scooterist had struck with the footpath about 15 meters ahead on the road in front of VIP Bungalow. It is further stated that the respondent no. 1 came out of the car and helped the scooterist on humanitarian ground which can be seen from the CCTV camera installed there. He thus prayed for dismissal of present claim petition.
4 The respondent no. 2/Insurance Company has filed written statement stating that the offending vehicle stood insured with them in the name of respondent no. 1 w.e.f. 04.07.2015 to 03.07.2016 and the liability of Insurance Company, if any, is subject to terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is further stated that the accident had occurred due to negligence of the petitioner himself as he was riding the scooter on the road without observing traffic rules and regulations.
5. On 13.01.2016, the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal consolidated the present claim petition/DAR with MACP No. 07/16 for the purpose of trial and decision as arising out of the same accident and framed the following consolidated issues as :-
1. Whether Sh. Ashwani Kumar (petitioner in the suit No. D-419/15) and Ms. Aarti (petitioner in the suit No. D-
420/15) sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on 01.09.2015 at about 10.20 am, in front of Kothi No. 4, Krishna Menon Lane cut/turn, Akbar Road, New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. PB- 11AY-2641 being driven and owned by respondent no. 1 and insured with respondent no. 2 ? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
MACP NO. 06/16 Page 3 of 223. Relief.
6. Heard arguments advanced by Sh. Manoj Goel, Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Vandana Kahlon, Advocate for respondent no.2/Insurance Company. However, none has turned up on behalf of Respondent no. 1 for addressing arguments. The case record has also been perused. The finding on the aforesaid issues is reproduced in succeeding paragraphs hereinafter.
ISSUE No. 1Whether Sh. Ashwani Kumar (petitioner in the suit No. D- 419/15) and Ms. Aarti (petitioner in the suit No. D-420/15) sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on 01.09.2015 at about 10.20 am, infront of Kothi No. 4, Krishna Menon Lane cut/turn, Akbar Road, New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. PB- 11AY-2641 being driven and owned by respondent no. 1 and insured with respondent no. 2 ? OPP.
7. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. In order to prove negligence of respondent no. 1, the petitioner Arti Gupta has examined herself as PW-9 by filing her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW-9/A and has also relied upon testimony of her husband Sh. Ashwani Gupta, who examined himself as PW8 by filing his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW8/A wherein they have narrated the mode and manner of accident as well as the injuries sustained by them and treatment taken thereafter.
8. During cross-examination, PW-8 and PW9 denied the suggestion that the accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1. No effective cross examination regarding negligence has been led on behalf of respondents.
9. It is explicit from the testimony of PW-8 and PW9 that MACP NO. 06/16 Page 4 of 22 occurrence of accident has not been disputed and the testimony of the witness in this regard has gone unrebutted. Nothing material could be elicited from the cross-examination of PW-8 and PW9 to disbelieve or discard their testimony. The testimonies of PW-8 and PW9 have been duly corroborated with the DAR filed by the IO. Further, it has not been disputed that respondent no.1 has been charge-sheeted in the aforesaid FIR for offences punishable under Sections 279/337/338 IPC 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.
10. 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 reported as 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310, Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh.
11. In view of foregoing discussion, it is held that oral evidence led on record by the petitioner on this issue is duly substantiated by the documentary evidence i.e. chargesheet, and thus, it stands proved on preponderance of probabilities that the aforesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing no. PB- 11AY-2641 which was being driven and owned by respondent no. 1 and insured with respondent no. 2 at the time of accident. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
MACP NO. 06/16 Page 5 of 22ISSUE 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, she has become entitled to be compensated for the injuries suffered by her in the accident, but the computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided. 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 different heads.
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses
13. The petitioner has claimed in her affidavit Ex. PW9/A that due to the accident, she sustained multiple grievous injuries including soft tissue injury and had lost her six teeth as well as her upper jaw was damaged in the accident. She further claimed that she got 15 stitches in her mouth and 11 stitches in her knee. She further claimed that she was admitted in JPNA Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi on 01.09.2015 and was discharged on the same day. The petitioner has examined Sh. Aditya Swaroop, Medical Record Technician, JPNA Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi as PW4 who has brought the treatment record of petitioner as Ex. PW4/1 (colly) which reflects that the petitioner was admitted in the said hospital on 01.09.2015 where she was diagnosed with soft tissue injury and was discharged on the same day.
MACP NO. 06/16 Page 6 of 2214. The petitioner has further claimed that after discharge from JPNA Trauma Centre, she was admitted in Indian Spinal Injuries Centre on 03.09.2015 and was discharged on 15.09.2015. She further claimed that the final bill of treatment was Rs. 48,853/-, which was initially paid by Delhi Police where husband of petitioner was working, but later an amount of Rs. 12,750 was refunded by husband of petitioner to the Delhi Police in cash in terms of the direction given by Delhi Police to the effect that he was not entitled to the said amount. She further claimed that she had paid a sum of Rs. 2702/- in cash to the Indian Spinal Injuries Centre. In order to prove the aforesaid medical expenses, she has examined Sh. Pawan Kumar, Medical Record Technician from Indian Spinal Injury Centre, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi as PW2 who deposed that as per hospital record, the petitioner was admitted in the hospital on 03.09.2015 and was discharged on 15.09.2015. He further deposed that as per records, the hospital had received a sum of Rs. 58,400/- from Delhi Police department on behalf of the petitioner and as the total amount of final bill was Rs. 48,853/-, the excess amount of Rs. 9547/- was refunded to Delhi Police department. He further deposed that the hospital had also received a sum of Rs. 127/-, Rs. 150/- Rs. 1285/- and Rs. 1140/- from the petitioner in cash and placed the payment receipts as Ex. PW2/3 (colly). He also proved the discharge summary as Ex. PW2/1, perusal of which show that the petitioner was diagnosed with undisplaced right acetabulum fracture anterior column fracture with incomplete acromial fracture. During cross examination, he denied the suggestion that the aforesaid payment receipts issued by the hospital were also reimbursed by the department of the injured as he was covered by CGHS.
15. The petitioner has further deposed that she kept on visiting the various hospitals as an OPD patient for the restoration of her health. She further deposed that initially, the petitioner had lost her six teeth in the MACP NO. 06/16 Page 7 of 22 accident and her upper jaw was also damaged. She further deposed that after removing some other teeth, 16 new teeth were fixed by the doctors and she had spent a sum of Rs. 16,000/- @ Rs. 1000/- per teeth. She further deposed that the doctor had advised her to take physiotherapy and she took the same from Dr. Manoj Kumar for the period from 13.10.2015 to 14.05.2016 @ Rs. 500/- per visit at home for which she had spent a sum of Rs. 47,500/-. She has relied upon original medical bills of Rs. 874/- as Ex. PW9/5 (colly), original physiotherapy bills of Rs. 47,500/- as Ex. PW9/6 (colly), original payment receipt dated 09.11.2015 for Rs. 12,752/- as Ex. PW9/8, original bill dated 10.12.2015 for a sum of Rs. 16,000/- issued by M/s Pearl Creators Dental Lab as Ex. PW9/9 and original bill dated 16.02.2015 for a sum of Rs. 1500/- as Ex. PW9/11.
16. During cross examination, PW9 denied the suggestion that she did not lose six teeth and did not receive 15 stitches in her mouth due to the accident. She further denied the suggestion that her upper jaw was not damaged due to the accident and 16 new teeth have to be implanted for which she spent Rs. 16,000/- @ Rs. 1000/- per teeth. She further denied the suggestion that she had not spent a sum of Rs. 47,500/- on physiotherapy @ Rs. 500/- per visit from 13.10.2015 to 14.05.2016. She further denied the suggestion that Ex. PW9/5, Ex. PW9/6, Ex. PW9/9 and Ex. PW9/10, Ex. PW-9/10A and Ex. PW-9/11 are forged, fabricated and procured documents and do not relate to the accidental injuries.
17. The petitioner has also examined Dr. Aditya Kapoor, Specialist Prosthodontics, Dental Care Clinic, Palika Health Complex, Dharam Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi as PW10. He deposed that OPD card in the name of patient Arti Gupta, which is available in court file has been issued by their dispensary and thus proved it as Mark PW10/A. He deposed that as per OPD card, the petitioner was examined by some MACP NO. 06/16 Page 8 of 22 doctor of their dispensary with history of trauma three months before and the mouth opening of petitioner was found good with no pain. He further deposed that it is also mentioned in the OPD card that the occlusion (manner in which the teeth meet) is satisfactory and patient is partially edentulous which means that some teeth of petitioner were missing, but the number of missing teeth is not mentioned in the OPD card. However, he could not identify the handwriting and signatures of person/doctor who made the said observation on the front page of OPD card. The same was his deposition with respect to reverse side of the OPD card. He further deposed that as per observation made on reverse side of OPD card, it appears that the prosthesis was done, i.e. missing teeth of petitioner were replaced with artificial teeth, but he could not tell the number of teeth replaced and by which doctor, the same were replaced. Further, he was shown an essentiality certificate Mark PW10/B to which the witness stated that the same was issued for PFM (Porcelain Fused to Metal) under which a cap is fixed on a tooth for its strength/replacement which was carried out in respect of 16 teeth and a sum of Rs. 16,000/- was charged for the said process. However, he could not identify the handwriting and signatures of doctor on Mark PW10/B.
18. During cross examination, PW10 deposed that he has never examined nor treated the petitioner and he has no personal knowledge of the case. He admitted that the above process of PFM may be required even if the damage caused to the teeth is due to cavity on account of age factor or otherwise or fall on hard surface.
19. The petitioner has quantified the amount of medical expenses in the written submissions as Rs. 81,328/- towards the aforesaid medical bills. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for Insurance Company has mainly disputed the physiotherapy bills of Rs.
MACP NO. 06/16 Page 9 of 2247,500/- Ex. PW9/6 (colly) and bill dated 10.12.2015 issued by M/s Pearl Creator Dental Lab for a sum of Rs. 16,000/- Ex. PW9/9 on the ground that PW10 was not the treating doctor and he could not prove the treatment undertaken by the petitioner towards the implantation of 16 teeth. It is also her contention that the petitioner had not suffered any teeth injury in the accident. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for petitioner submits that the tooth injury is apparent from MLC of the petitioner.
20. Regarding the medical bill of Rs. 16,000/- placed on record by the petitioner as Ex. PW9/9, PW10 Dr. Aditya Kapoor has categorically deposed that the OPD card Mark PW10/A in the name of petitioner has been issued by their dispensary and there is no reason to disbelieve the said testimony of PW10. Further, it has been categorically mentioned in the MLC that the petitioner had visible injury of broken tooth on upper jaw. The testimony of the petitioner and PW10 Dr. Aditya Kapoor coupled with the MLC Ex. PW4/1 (colly) and OPD card Mark PW10/A makes it evident that the teeth of the petitioner were broken due to the accident, which were got replaced. Insofar as physiotherapy bills are concerned, it is stated in the bill Ex. PW-9/6(Colly) that physiotherapy was conducted on account of stiffness in hip joint and shoulder joint due to accident. Considering the fact that the petitioner has suffered 10% permanent disability with respect to her right hip vide disability certificate Ex. PW7/A, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the petitioner that she got her physiotherapy done from Dr. Manoj Kumar.
21. Needless to say, the insurance company has not led any evidence to show that the said bills do not relate to injuries suffered by the petitioner in the aforesaid accident. Thus, the testimony of PW-9 that she has spent the aforesaid amount towards medical expenses remained unrebutted and uncontroverted. In the absence of any plausible evidence MACP NO. 06/16 Page 10 of 22 produced by respondents on record, the petitioner is held entitled to Rs.81,328/- towards her medical expenses.
(ii) Loss of actual earnings
22. The petitioner in her affidavit Ex. PW9/A has claimed that she was working with M/s Jai Balaji Security Services (Regd.), 102 Shivlok House 1, Karampura Comm. Complex, Karampur, New Delhi as Data Entry Operator on contractual basis and was posted at Ministry of Commerce, Udhyog Bhawan, New Delhi and was getting a gross salary of Rs. 10,998/- per month. She further claimed that she could not join her duties and had lost her job. She further claimed that if she had not met with an accident and had been in service continuously, she would have been paid salary on the basis of minimum wages revised w.e.f. 03.03.2017 by the Delhi Government. The petitioner has tendered on record original salary certificate dated 12.11.2015 as Ex. PW9/10.
23. In order to prove employment and salary, the petitioner has examined Sh. Lekh Raj, AR of M/s Jai Balaji Security Services as PW6, who has placed on record attested copy of salary sheets for the period from June 2015 to August 2015 as Ex. PW6/9 (colly) which reflects that the petitioner was being paid a gross salary of Rs. 10,998/- per month. He further deposed that the petitioner was working as Data Entry Operator with their firm w.e.f. 01.06.2015 and on the date of accident, the petitioner was posted at Ministry of Commerce, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi and was being paid a gross salary of Rs. 10,998/- per month. He further deposed that the petitioner never joined the duties after her accident and if she had not met with an accident and had been in service continuously, she would have been paid salary on the basis of minimum wages revised w.e.f. 03.03.2017 by the Delhi Government. He has also placed on record MACP NO. 06/16 Page 11 of 22 attested copy of letter dated 24.06.2015 showing minimum wages and deductions as Ex. PW6/6 and attested copy of contract executed by Ministry of Commerce as Ex. PW6/8 (colly).
24. During cross examination, PW6 admitted that the petitioner was working on contract basis in their firm and the salary was being paid in cash. He further deposed that they used to take signatures of the employee on the salary slip itself. He further deposed that the contract Ex. PW6/8 was initially for a period of one year and the same was renewed after the expiry of one year. He admitted that the petitioner was not permanent employee. He denied the suggestion that the petitioner did not join back as the contract period was over. He deposed that he has not brought any document to show that they would have paid the minimum wages, had she joined back the duty. He volunteered that anybody working with the Ministry cannot be paid below the minimum wages.
25. It is evident from the testimony of PW6 coupled with aforesaid exhibited documents that the petitioner was drawing salary of Rs. 10,998/- per month. Keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner and the period of treatment undertaken by her, it is in the fitness of things to award her loss of salary for a period of six months. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs. 65,988/- (Rs. 10,998/- X 6 months).
(iii) Loss of future earnings due to disability
26. In order to prove the disability certificate Ex. PW7/A, the petitioner has examined Dr. Satish Kumar, M.S. (Ortho), Professor & Consultant, Head Orthopedics, Dr. RML Hospital, New Delhi as PW7. PW7 deposed that the petitioner has suffered 10% permanent disability with respect to her right hip. He further deposed that the petitioner is a case of undisplaced fracture acetabulum (right hip) and fracture left MACP NO. 06/16 Page 12 of 22 clavicle (left shoulder). He further deposed that the petitioner will have difficulty in squatting and cross leg sitting, but she will not face any difficulty while doing computer job on the desk while sitting on a chair.
27. 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 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 MACP NO. 06/16 Page 13 of 22 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............."
28. Perusal of disability certificate Ex. PW7/A shows that the petitioner is a old case of RTA with old fracture undisplaced right acetabulum with fracture united lateral end of left clavicle and has difficulty in squatting and movement of right hip painful and her permanent physical impairment is 10%.
29. Considering the legal position already discussed above and the facts and circumstances of the present case, the functional disability of the petitioner is taken as equivalent to the disability as mentioned in the disability certificate Ex. PW7/A, i.e. 10%.
30. To apply the multiplier, it is necessary to ascertain the age of the petitioner. In this regard, petitioner has tendered on record copy of her Aadhar card and PAN card as Ex. PW9/1 (OSR) and Ex. PW9/2 (OSR) respectively. In Aadhar card Ex.PW9/1, the year of birth of petitioner is found recorded as 1968 whereas in PAN card Ex. PW9/2, the date of birth of petitioner is mentioned as 03.09.1968. Hence, going by these documents, her age as on 01.09.2015 i.e. date of accident was 47 years and 2 days. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport MACP NO. 06/16 Page 14 of 22 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. passed in SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014 decided on 31.10.2017, the multiplier of 13 is applicable for calculating the loss of future earnings of the petitioner arising out of above disability.The petitioner is also held entitled to 25% future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.(Supra) as she was between the age of 40 to 50 years at the time of accident and her job was not permanent in nature. Thus, the loss of future earnings caused to the petitioner due to his permanent disability comes to Rs. 2,14,461/- (Rs. 10,998/- X 12 X 10/100 X 13 + 25% of Rs. 1,71,568.8/-).
(iv) Mental and Physical Shock, Pain and Sufferings & Loss of Amenities.
31. As stated above, the petitioner has suffered permanent disability in the accident. Though, it is not possible to exactly compensate her for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which she had actually suffered because of the above injuries and disability, but an effort has to be made to compensate her 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 her etc., an amount of Rs. 75,000/- each is being awarded to her towards mental and physical shock & for pain and sufferings. Further, an amount of Rs. 25,000/- is also awarded to her towards the loss of amenities suffered by her during the said period of her treatment. Thus, she is awarded total amount of Rs.1,75,000/- under this head.
MACP NO. 06/16 Page 15 of 22(v) Conveyance, Special Diet and Attendant Charges
32. The petitioner in his affidavit Ex. PW1/A has claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- towards special diet and Rs. 30,000/- towards conveyance. Though, no specific evidence has been led on record on behalf of the petitioner towards the expenses borne by her on transportation and special diet during the period of her hospitalization and treatment, 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 her treatment and special diet for her early recovery. In view of the evidence led on record with regard to the nature and extent of injuries suffered by the petitioner and the treatment taken by her, an amount of Rs. 30,000/- towards conveyance and Rs. 3,000/- per month for 6 months towards special diet is being awarded to the petitioner.
33. The petitioner has tendered on record original bill dated 19.10.2015 for a sum of Rs. 12,000/- towards attendant charges along with original payment receipt as Ex. PW9/7 (colly). Having considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, she would have spent money towards attendant charges/gratuitous services which might have been rendered by any of her family members to help her during the above said period of her treatment and immobility. The petitioner is thus entitled to claimed amount of Rs. 12,000/- towards attendant charges. The petitioner is thus awarded an amount of Rs.60,000/- (Rs.30,000/- + Rs. 3,000/- per month X 6 months + Rs. 12,000/-) under the aforesaid heads.
Issue No.3/Relief
34. In view of foregoing discussion, the petitioner is thus awarded a sum of Rs. 5,96,777/- (Rs. 81,328/- + Rs. 65,988/- + Rs.2,14,461/- + Rs.
MACP NO. 06/16 Page 16 of 221,75,000/- + Rs. 60,000/-) (Rupees Five Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Seven only) along with 6% interest from the date of filing of DAR. 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
35. The entire award amount is directed to be released in the saving bank account of petitioner bearing No. 90772610000445, having IFSC Code SYNB0009077 and PAN No. AKAPA3933G, being maintained with Syndicate Bank, DTC Depot, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi through RTGS/NEFT or any other electronic mode.
LIABILITY
36. All the respondents are though being held jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to petitioners, respondent no. 2 being insurer of the offending vehicle is held liable to deposit the awarded amount with the UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in bank account of this tribunal being maintained with the above said bank within 30 days from today failing which it is 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, respondent no. 2 fails to deposit this compensation with interest, in that event, in light of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed 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 Respondent no. 2 with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.
MACP NO. 06/16 Page 17 of 2237. The respondent no. 2 shall inform the petitioner and her counsel through registered post that the awarded amount has been deposited so as to facilitate her to collect the same.
38. The copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost or be sent by email. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to 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, 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 01.09.2015
2. Date of filing of Form I- First Accident NA Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the victim(s) NA
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Driver NA
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the owner NA
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim NA Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form VIB NA from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII-Detailed 08.12.2015 Accident Report (DAR) MACP NO. 06/16 Page 18 of 22
9. Whether there was any delay or deficiency No on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Not given Officer by the Insurance Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the No 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 claimant(s) of the Legal offer not filed offer of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 30.08.2022
15. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open savings bank account(s) near their Yes 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 produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque 31.01.2018 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 near the place of their residence along 08.01.2020 with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of the R/o 83-B, Police Colony, Claimant(s) Sector-12, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110022.
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank Yes account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the time of passing of the award to Yes ascertain his/their financial condition?MACP NO. 06/16 Page 19 of 22
41. File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 02.12.2022.
Announced in the open court. (Manjusha Wadhwa) on 30.08.2022 PO/MACT, New Delhi
Encl: The summary of computation in the prescribed format MACP NO. 06/16 Page 20 of 22 SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD IN INJURY CASES IN FORM XVI
1. Date of accident : 01.09.2015
2. Name of the injured : Arti Gupta
3. Age of the injured : 47 years and 2 days.
4. Occupation of the injured : Contractual job
5. Income of the injured : Rs.10,998/- per month
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured: JPNA Trauma Centre & Indian Spinal Injuries Centre
8. Period of hospitalization : 01.09.2015 and discharged on the same day.
03.09.2015 to 15.09.2015
9. Whether any permanent disability?: 10% permanent disability and functional disability is also taken as 10%.
10. Computation of Compensation Sr.No. Heads Amount awarded
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 81,328/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 30,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 18,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs.12,000/-
(v) Loss of earning capacity Nil
(vi) Loss of Income Rs.65,988/-
(vii) Any other loss which may require Nil
any special treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and Rs.75,000/-
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.75,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.25,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration Nil
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil
MACP NO. 06/16 Page 21 of 22
(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 assessed Nil
and nature of 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 Nil
relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income Rs. 2,14,461/-
14. Total Compensation Rs.5,96,777/-
15. Interest Awarded 6% pa from date of filing of
DAR till deposit in 30 days and
9% thereafter.
16. Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 2,41,032.51/-
award
17. Total amount including interest Rs. 8,37,809.51/- (rounded
off to Rs. 8,38,000/-)
18. Award amount released Entire amount
released
19. Award amount kept in the FDRs/ Nil
Motor Accident Claims Annuity
Deposit (MACAD)
20. Mode of disbursement of the award Through bank
amount to the claimant (s)
21. Next date for compliance of the 02.12.2022
award
(Manjusha Wadhwa)
PO/MACT, New Delhi
30.08.2022
MACP NO. 06/16 Page 22 of 22