Delhi District Court
Ramsharan Yadav @ Ram Sawrup Yadav vs Subhash Yadav on 11 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF HARVINDER SINGH, DISTRICT
JUDGE-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-01,(WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
AWARD/JUDGMENT
MACT Case No.439/2021
CNR No.DLWT01-008131-2021
Ramsharan Yadav @
Ram Sawrup Yadav @
Ram Saran Yadav
S/o Sh. Makhru Yadav
R/o Ward No.01, Gogri Kundi,
Post Gogri, District Khagaria,
Gogri Khagaria, Bihar - 851 202. ................petitioner
Versus
(1) Sh. Subhash Yadav
S/o Sh. Kamal Yadav
R/o Jhuggi, Cement Shedding,
Shakur Basti, Delhi.
(2) Mrs. Manisha
W/o Sh. Sushil
R/o Pana - Dalyan,
Bhambhewa Beri, Jhajjar,
Haryana - 124 021.
(3) Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.
At A - 1, Kirti Palace, Tagore Garden,
Kirti Nagar, New Delhi - 110 015. ............respondents
Date of Institution : 29.10.2021
Date of final arguments : 11.09.2024
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 11.09.2024
FORM-XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE Ramsharan Yadav @ Ram Sawrup Yadav @ Ram Saran Yadav Vs. Subhash Yadav & Ors.
MACT No.439/2021 Page No.1 of 32
HARVINDER Digitally signed by HARVINDER
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.09.12 10:31:18
+0530
1. Date of the accident 12.08.2020
2. Date of filing of Form-I - First Form-1 (FAR) was not Accident Report (FAR) filed in the present matter
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the Form-II was not filed in victim(s) the present matter
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from Form-III was not filed in the Driver the present matter
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from Form-IV was not filed in the Owner the present matter
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- Form-V (IAR) was not Interim Accident Report (IAR) filed in the present matter
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form VIA & VIB were Form-VIB from the Victim(s) not filed in the present matter.
8. Date of filing of Form-VII- 29.10.2021 Detailed Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or Yes deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Not mentioned Designated Officer by the Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Officer No of the Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or Written statement was deficiency on the part of the filed on 05.07.2022 by Designated Officer of the the respondent insurance Insurance Company? If so, company.
whether any action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the Legal offer was not given claimant(s) to the offer of the by the insurance company Insurance Company Ramsharan Yadav @ Ram Sawrup Yadav @ Ram Saran Yadav Vs. Subhash Yadav & Ors.
MACT No.439/2021 Page No.2 of 32 Digitally signed byHARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.09.12 10:31:23 +0530
14. Date of the award 11.09.2024
15. Whether the claimant(s) Yes was/were directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which 07.05.2024 claimant(s) was/were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Aadhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook
17. Date on which the claimant(s) 14.05.2024 produced the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address Ward No.01, Gogri of the claimant(s) Kundi, Post Gogri, District Khagaria, Gogri Khagaria, Bihar - 851 202.
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings Yes bank account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) Yes was/were examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
FACTUAL POSITION & PLEADINGS
1. Vide this judgment/award, this Tribunal shall decide petition/application/DAR filed for compensation on account of the injuries sustained by injured Ramsharan Yadav @ Ram Ramsharan Yadav @ Ram Sawrup Yadav @ Ram Saran Yadav Vs. Subhash Yadav & Ors.
MACT No.439/2021 Page No.3 of 32 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.09.12 10:31:26 +0530
Sawrup Yadav @ Ram Saran Yadav in a road vehicular accident which took place on 12.08.2020 at about 05:45 am at Ring Road, In Front of Janmashtmi Park, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. CASE OF THE PETITIONER SIDE 2.1 Succinctly, the case put forth vide petition/DAR is that on 12.08.2020, petitioner/claimant along-with one Nawab was travelling as occupant in a truck bearing registration number HR-46C-6859 being loaded with cement bags from Rajouri Garden to Cement siding, Shakur Basti, Punjabi Bagh. It driver was driving it at high speed, in rash manner and negligent manner. At about 05:45 am, when their truck reached at Ring Road, In Front of Janmashtmi Park, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, one motorcycle suddenly came from behind in high speed and in negligent manner. It took sharp turn in front of their truck. Driver of their truck took abrupt turn to avoid collision with it. Their truck struck against the divider of road with great force. Due to same, petitioner/claimant fell upon the road from truck and sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately taken to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, New Delhi where he was examined vide MLC No.452/2020. Later on, he received treatment from Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini and R.M.L. Hospital, Delhi. He incurred expenses of around Rs.5,00,000/- on his medical treatment and Rs.15,000/- upon diet/attendant/conveyance expenses etc. 2.2 It is claimed that the injured/claimant was about 44 years of age at the time of accident. He had good health and physique at the time of incident. He used to work as labourer at Cement siding of loading and unloading of cement bags. He was earning approximately Rs.20,000/- per month. The respondent Ramsharan Yadav @ Ram Sawrup Yadav @ Ram Saran Yadav Vs. Subhash Yadav & Ors.
MACT No.439/2021 Page No.4 of 32 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.09.12
10:31:30 +0530
no.01 being driver, respondent no.02 being owner and respondent no.03 being insurer of the offending vehicle truck are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to petitioner. The petitioner/claimant has sought compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakh Only) from the respondents. MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS
3. Notice of the application/DAR was issued to the respondents, they appeared and filed their written statements/replies to the present application/petition/DAR.
RESPONSE OF THE RESPONDENT NO.01 & 024. In gist, the response of respondent no.01 & 02 as discernible from their reply/written statement is that the present DAR is not maintainable as the petitioner has not suffered injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.01. It is clear from the petition/DAR itself that truck driver took abrupt turn only to avoid collision with one motorcycle which had taken sharp turn in front of the truck. Vehicle bearing registration number HR-46C-6859 was duly insured with respondent no.03 vide policy no.101026/31/20/019054 valid from 21.10.2019 to 20.10.2020 covering the date of incident. The claim of the petitioner needs to be dismissed. RESPONSE OF RESPONDENT NO.03
5. Succinctly, the response of respondent no.03 as discernible from its written statement/reply is that incident in question has happened due to rash and negligent driving of driver of unknown motorcycle for which detailed investigation was carried out by IO, but he could not be traced and ultimately untrace report was filed by IO in this matter. Petitioner/claimant has not been able to prove the relationship of employer- Ramsharan Yadav @ Ram Sawrup Yadav @ Ram Saran Yadav Vs. Subhash Yadav & Ors.
MACT No.439/2021 Page No.5 of 32 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.09.12
10:31:33 +0530
employee. Respondent no.03 is not liable to pay anything as petitioner/injured was traveling as unauthorized person in the truck in question and was sitting on the top of truck/phatta. The respondent no.03 denied all other averments of petition/DAR and has prayed for dismissal of same.
ISSUES 6.1 After completion of pleadings, the Scholarly Predecessor of this Tribunal framed following issues on 30.07.2022 : -
(i) Whether the injured Ramsharan Yadav @ Ram Sawrup Yadav @ Ram Saran Yadav suffered injuries in the accident that took place on 12.08.2020 at about 05:45 AM due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle (truck) bearing registration number HR-46C-6859 by the respondent no.01, being owned by respondent no.02 and being insured with respondent no.03? OPP
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if yes, at what amount and from whom? OPP
(iii) Relief.
6.2 Thereafter, matter was fixed for evidence of petitioner side.
PETITIONER SIDE EVIDENCE 7.1 The petitioner/claimant/injured examined himself as PW1 to establish his claim. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A reiterating and supporting the contents of his application/petition. He relied upon the documents i.e. (i) Photocopy of his Aadhar Card Ex.PW1/1 (OSR), (ii) Photocopy of MLC being part of DAR Ex.PW1/2, (iii) Discharge summary Ex.PW1/3, (iv) Original prescriptions and OPD cards of VMCC & Safdarjung Hospital Ex.PW1/4 (collectively), (v) Original prescriptions, bills, discharge summary of Dr. Sanjay Ramsharan Yadav @ Ram Sawrup Yadav @ Ram Saran Yadav Vs. Subhash Yadav & Ors.
MACT No.439/2021 Page No.6 of 32 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.09.12
10:31:36 +0530
Multispeciality Hospital Ex.PW1/5 (collectively), (vi) Original prescription of Rohilla Clinic & medicine bills Ex.PW1/6 (collectively), (vii) Original prescription of Bone & Joint Hospital & Trauma Centre, Bihar Ex.PW1/7 (collectively), (viii) Original OPD card and prescription of Mata Gujri Memorial Medical College & Lions Seva Kendra Hospital, Bihar Ex.PW1/8 (collectively), (ix) Photocopy of prescriptions and medical bills Ex.PW1/9 (collectively)' and (x) Original five x- ray films Ex.PW1/10 (collectively) in his evidence. PW1 was examined, cross-examined at length by Ld. Counsels for the respondents which is not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity and was discharged.
7.2 The petitioner/claimant/injured examined Dr. Sumant Sinha as PW2 to prove the nature of injuries suffered by him. He proved final report of the board dated 14.12.2022 as Ex.PW2/A. He deposed that injuries suffered by the injured are result of road side accident. Disabilities suffered are temporary in nature. He further deposed that petitioner has been advised to undergo operation for healing and he should avoid lifting heavy weight/load. PW2 was examined, not cross-examined by the respondents despite opportunity given and was discharged. 7.3 No other witness was examined by petitioner side and matter was then fixed for respondent side evidence. RESPONDENT SIDE EVIDENCE 8.1 The respondent no.01 Subhash examined himself as R1W1 to establish his defence. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.R1W1/A reiterating and supporting the contents of his response. R1W1 was cross-examined at length by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.03 Insurance Company and by Ld. Ramsharan Yadav @ Ram Sawrup Yadav @ Ram Saran Yadav Vs. Subhash Yadav & Ors.
MACT No.439/2021 Page No.7 of 32 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.09.12
10:31:41 +0530
Counsel for the petitioner/claimant which is not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity and was discharged. 8.2 The respondent no.03 Insurance Company examined its Legal Executive Sh. Nishant Tripathi as R3W1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.R3W1/A reiterating and supporting the contents of their WS. He relied upon the documents i.e. (i) copy of Insurance Policy Ex.R3W1/2, (ii) Copy of notice dated 15.02.2024 sent to respondent no.02 to produce the original copy of policy Ex.R3W1/3, (iii) Receipts of sending the notice dated 15.02.2024 Ex.R3W1/4 and ; (iv) Tracking report of service of notice Ex.R3W1/5 in his evidence. R3W1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.01 and not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner/claimant despite opportunity given which is not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity and was discharged. 8.3 No further evidence was lead by any of the respondents and matter was then fixed for final arguments. FINAL ARGUMENTS/SUBMISSIONS/CONTENTIONS 9.1 Submissions/contentions of the petitioner side are that the petitioner side has positively proved that the incident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.01. The injured was about 44 years of age at the time of accident. He used to work as labourer at Cement siding of loading and unloading of cement bags. He was earning approximately Rs.20,000/- per month at the time of accident. Award may be passed by this Tribunal as per entitlement/claim of applicant/injured.
9.2 Submissions/contentions of the respondent no.01/driver and no.02/owner are that the incident has not Ramsharan Yadav @ Ram Sawrup Yadav @ Ram Saran Yadav Vs. Subhash Yadav & Ors.
MACT No.439/2021 Page No.8 of 32 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.09.12 10:31:44 +0530
happened due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.01. The incident happened solely due to rashness and negligence of injured himself. The respondent no.01 was driving his vehicle in reasonable manner following all traffic rules and has valid driving license to drive the same. Respondent no.01/driver took abrupt turn only to avoid collision with one motorcycle which suddenly came from behind in rash manner and took sharp turn in front of the truck. Petition of the petitioner side be dismissed. 9.3 Submissions/contentions of the respondent no.03 Insurance Company are that the petitioner/claimant has failed to prove that incident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.01/driver. Incident happened due to rashness and negligence of the injured himself. Respondent no.03 is not liable to pay anything as petitioner/injured was traveling as unauthorized person in the truck in question. He was sitting on the top of truck/phatta, therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation in this matter.
ANALYSIS/FINDINGS ON ISSUES Issue No.(1) : whether the injured Ramsharan Yadav @ Ram Sawrup Yadav @ Ram Saran Yadav suffered injuries in the accident that took place on 12.08.2020 at about 05:45 am due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle (truck) bearing registration number HR-46C-6859 by the respondent no.01, being owned by respondent no.02 and being insured with respondent no.03? OPP 10.1 Before adverting to the facts of the present petition for deciding the above issue, at the very outset, it would be apposite to note here that the procedure followed by an accident claim tribunal is similar to what is followed by a civil Court. In civil matters the facts are required to be established by way of Ramsharan Yadav @ Ram Sawrup Yadav @ Ram Saran Yadav Vs. Subhash Yadav & Ors.
MACT No.439/2021 Page No.9 of 32 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.09.12
10:31:48 +0530
preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubt as is required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is not as heavy as it is in a criminal case and in a claim petition under The Motor Vehicles Act, this burden is even lesser than a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the prepositions of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of "Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors." reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgments in the case of "Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and Ors." 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and "Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.", 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc. 10.2 Now keeping in mind the aforesaid legal principle/preposition for decision of the present issue, this Tribunal has gone through the testimony of the witnesses and entire material available on record. This Tribunal has also given thoughtful consideration to arguments addressed by Ld. Counsels for the parties along with the statement of the petitioner recorded under MCTAP.
10.3 Petitioner/PW-1 has deposed vide his affidavit of evidence that he was traveling as labourer & authorized representative of owner of goods on truck bearing registration number HR-46C-6859 loaded with cement bags on way from Rajouri Garden to Cement siding, Shakur Basti. Respondent no.01 was driving the said truck in rash and negligent manner and in fast speed at the time of accident. Suddenly, one motorcycle came from behind in high speed and negligent manner. It took sharp turn in front of their truck. Driver of their Ramsharan Yadav @ Ram Sawrup Yadav @ Ram Saran Yadav Vs. Subhash Yadav & Ors.
MACT No.439/2021 Page No.10 of 32 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.09.12 10:31:52 +0530
truck took abrupt turn to avoid collision with motorcycle. Truck struck against the divider of the road with great force. He promptly denied the suggestion in his cross-examination that he was not permitted to sit on the wooden fatta by driver. On the other hand, the respondent no.1/driver has deposed that he was taking cement bags from Cement siding Shakur Basti to Rajouri Garden, Delhi on the day of incident. At the start of journey, he noticed that one of labourer Ramsharan Yadav @ Ram Swarup Yadav (petitioner) is under the influence of alcohol, so, he refused and stopped him from boarding his truck. His employer hired another labour in place of him. He along with labouer started journey towards destination and when he reached near Janamasthami Park Punjabi Bagh, Delhi then suddenly one motorcycle overtook his truck and took sharp turn in front of his truck. To avoid accident, he applied sudden brakes. Motorcyclist fled away from the spot and registration number of motorcycle could not be noted down. He does not know when petitioner boarded his truck. He has never permitted him to travel in his truck. The incident has not happened due to his negligence. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that there was no fatta/dala at the back side of his truck available for sitting of any person. He also denied suggestion in his cross-examination that both labours were traveling as unauthorized passengers in his truck. He admitted in his cross-examination that he is facing trial before the court of Ld. JMFC qua the incident and had not made any complaint against any police official qua this matter. If the evidence of both injured and respondent no.1 is evaluated, it is crystal clear that incident happened due to composite negligence of unknown motorcycle rider and respondent no.1. There is grain Ramsharan Yadav @ Ram Sawrup Yadav @ Ram Saran Yadav Vs. Subhash Yadav & Ors.
MACT No.439/2021 Page No.11 of 32 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.09.12
10:31:55 +0530
of truth in deposition of both of them. Had the unknown motrocyclist not taken abrupt turn ahead of the truck, no incident would have taken place. Similarly, had respondent no.1 not being in fast speed, he could have only applied brakes to avert collision with motorcycle instead of taking abrupt turn and hitting it against divider. In those circumstances, the petitioner would not have fallen from the truck and has not received injuries. The deposition of respondent no.1 that petitioner was under influence of alcohol is not supported by MLC of the petitioner as no smell of alcohol was noted by doctor at the time of its preparation. So, the other part of deposition of respondent no.1 that he stopped petitioner from boarding truck is not believable. In totality of circumstances, in the opinion of this Tribunal, it is a clear case of composite negligence on the part of unknown motorcyclist and the respondent no.1. Since, the other joint tort feaser(s) (rider of motorcycle) is not party before this Tribunal, therefore, it is not permissible for this Tribunal to determine the extent/ratio of negligence of respondent no.2 and unknown motorcyclist. The claim of petitioner against respondent no.1, his owner and insurer of the offending vehicle is perfectly maintainable even without impleading the other joint tort feaser(s). Reliance can be placed upon on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matters of "Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors." decided on 07.05.2015 and "Kamlesh & Ors. Vs. Attar Singh & Ors. "
decided on 27.10.2015 upon both these issues. In view of above discussions, the contention of respondents that incident has happened solely due to negligence of unknown motorcycle rider stands rejected.
10.4 As far as contention of Insurance Company that the Ramsharan Yadav @ Ram Sawrup Yadav @ Ram Saran Yadav Vs. Subhash Yadav & Ors.MACT No.439/2021 Page No.12 of 32 Digitally signed by HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.09.12
10:31:59 +0530
petitioner was traveling as gratuitous passengers in the vehicle in question is concerned, firstly petitioner has deposed that he was traveling on the truck in question as authorized representative of the owner of the goods. Secondly, the respondent no.1 has also denied in his cross-examination that petitioner was traveling as gratuitous passenger. The case of petitioner that he was travelling in truck as authorized representative of the owner of goods appears to be probable as no other person has been stated to be available in the vehicle in question as authorized representative of owner of goods at the time of incident. Hence, contention of the respondent no.3/Insurance Company that petitioner was gratuitous passenger on the vehicle in question at the time of incident is also rejected.
10.5 In totality of circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the claimant side has been able to bring on record such facts which proves almost at the scales of preponderance of probabilities that the incident in question took place due to composite negligence of driver/respondent no.1 of offending vehicle bearing registration number HR46C6859 on the date and time of the incident. Accordingly, issue no.01 is decided in favour of the petitioner(s)/claimant(s)/applicant(s) and against the respondents.
Issue No.(2) : whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if yes, at what amount and from whom? OPP 11.1 The petitioner is certainly entitled for compensation in view of decision of above issue. Before proceeding further to decide the present issue, it would be apposite to encapsulate the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its guiding Ramsharan Yadav @ Ram Sawrup Yadav @ Ram Saran Yadav Vs. Subhash Yadav & Ors.MACT No.439/2021 Page No.13 of 32 Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.09.12
10:32:03 +0530
lamp post judgment for ascertaining just compensation in road vehicular injury cases.
11.2 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its division bench decision in matter of "Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors." (2011) 1 SCC 343 has held : -
"General principles relating to compensation in injury cases
4. The provision of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The Court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467).
5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising :
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. Assessment of pecuniary damages under item (i) and under item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the Ramsharan Yadav @ Ram Sawrup Yadav @ Ram Saran Yadav Vs. Subhash Yadav & Ors.
MACT No.439/2021 Page No.14 of 32 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.09.12
10:32:06 +0530
evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses - item (iii)
-- depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages - items (iv), (v) and (vi) -- involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decision of this Court and High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability - item (ii)(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this case. Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability.
6. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human-being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (`Disabilities Act' for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation.
7. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body, cannot obviously exceed 100%.
8. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such Ramsharan Yadav @ Ram Sawrup Yadav @ Ram Saran Yadav Vs. Subhash Yadav & Ors.
MACT No.439/2021 Page No.15 of 32 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.09.12 10:32:10 +0530
permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terns of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation (see for example, the decisions of this court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567).
9. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence: (i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary; (ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement, (iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered by the person. If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity.
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 Ramsharan Yadav @ Ram Sawrup Yadav @ Ram Saran Yadav Vs. Subhash Yadav & Ors.
MACT No.439/2021 Page No.16 of 32 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.09.12 10:32:14 +0530
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 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."
11.3 In view of the above law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in routine injury cases, award needs to be passed only under heads of medical expenses, loss of earning during treatment period and damages for pain, suffering and trauma. In cases of serious injuries, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the claim/evidence of the claimant, award additionally needs to be passed under the heads of loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability suffered, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (including loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. The assessment of future medical expenses would depend upon Ramsharan Yadav @ Ram Sawrup Yadav @ Ram Saran Yadav Vs. Subhash Yadav & Ors.
MACT No.439/2021 Page No.17 of 32 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.09.12
10:32:19 +0530
specific medical evidence/advise for further treatment and costs thereof. The determination of damages on account of pain and suffering, loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life would depend upon the age of victim, nature of injury(ies)/deprivation/disability suffered by victim and the effect thereof on life of claimant. The process would involve determination/assessment of lump-sum amounts under those heads. In case of assessment of loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, the Tribunal needs to first ascertain whether the disability noted/assessed by the medical board is temporary or permanent in nature. If the disability is permanent in nature, then whether it is a total permanent disablement or partial permanent disablement. If the disablement has been referred/expressed in percentage terms, in reference to any specific limb then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the function of entire body. Once, the permanent disability is ascertained, then the Tribunal needs to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect the earning capacity of the claimant. To ascertain same, the Tribunal needs to ascertain the avocation, profession and nature of work of the claimant before the incident. The Tribunal also needs to ascertain his age and then needs to ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of permanent disability and what he could not do as result of same. The Tribunal then also needs to ascertain whether the claimant is totality disabled from earning any kind of livelihood or whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on activities and functions which he was carrying on earlier or whether the claimant is prevented or restricted from discharging his previous Ramsharan Yadav @ Ram Sawrup Yadav @ Ram Saran Yadav Vs. Subhash Yadav & Ors.
MACT No.439/2021 Page No.18 of 32 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.09.12
10:32:23 +0530
activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood despite permanent disability suffered. After ascertaining the functional disability vide above process, then Tribunal needs to workout the loss of earning capacity per month. The Tribunal is thereafter required to workout loss of earning capacity per annum. An appropriate multiplier needs to be ascertained as per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of "Sarla Verma Vs. DTC" 2009 ACJ 1298 SC according to age of the injured/victim. The total loss of earning capacity then needs to be worked out multiplying appropriate multiplier ascertained with ascertained annual loss of earning capacity. This is a case where permanent disability is claimed and compensation is also demanded qua future loss of earnings on account of permanent disability, hence, this Tribunal now proceeds further step by step to decide the compensation/award under different heads applicable to the present matter in light of above preposition.
DETERMINATION OF INJURIES AND DURATION OF TREATMENT 11.4 It would be appropriate to first ascertain the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/claimant and duration of treatment as they needs to be kept in mind while ascertaining the compensation under different heads applicable. The petitioner has filed on record his MLC records along-with discharge summaries of different hospitals and other treatment records/medical bills as Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/10 to prove his nature of injuries. As per said documents, the injured has suffered multiple injuries, has to undergo surgery of right arm Ramsharan Yadav @ Ram Sawrup Yadav @ Ram Saran Yadav Vs. Subhash Yadav & Ors.
MACT No.439/2021 Page No.19 of 32 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.09.12
10:32:28 +0530
shoulder and plate was inserted. Operation was also performed upon his right hip and three nails were affixed. He was admitted and discharged by various hospitals. He was under regular treatment till 24.03.2023 as per Ex.PW1/9.
DETERMINATION OF AGE OF CLAIMANT/INJURED & MULTIPLIER 11.5 The age of the claimant/injured would also be an essential consideration for grant of just compensation under different heads applicable in the present matter, so claimant's age also needs to be ascertained first. As per Aadhar Card of injured Ex.PW1/1, date of birth of injured is 01.01.1977. Incident took place on 12.08.2020. So, the injured was aged about 43 years of age on the date of incident. So, the injured/petitioner is taken 43 years of age at the time of incident/accident. Since, the injured falls in age bracket of 41 - 45, so the multiplier applicable in this case would be 14.
DETERMINATION OF MEDICAL EXPENSES 11.6 The claimant/injured has filed his original prescriptions, medical bills, discharge summaries as Ex.PW1/5, Ex.PW1/6 and Ex.PW1/9. The total amount of bills submitted by petitioner are of around Rs.76,313/-. Hence, the petitioner has been able to prove that he is entitled for a sum of Rs.76,313/- on account of medical bills/expenses. Accordingly, the petitioner is awarded Rs.76,313/- on account of medical expenses. AWARD TOWARDS FUTURE TREATMENT 11.7 Petitioner has not claimed any amount required for future treatment. Petitioner has also not filed any document/medical evidence on record to show that petitioner requires any future treatment, hence, petitioner is not entitled for Ramsharan Yadav @ Ram Sawrup Yadav @ Ram Saran Yadav Vs. Subhash Yadav & Ors.
MACT No.439/2021 Page No.20 of 32 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.09.12
10:32:32 +0530
any amount under this head.
PAIN & SUFFERINGS
11.8 A particular amount cannot be fixed of pain and
sufferings applicable to all cases as it varies from case to case. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that since the petitioner has received number of serious injuries, therefore, petitioner must have suffered acute pain and sufferings owing to the said injuries. Considering the nature of injuries, duration of the treatment of the petitioner in the hospital and the disability(ies) suffered by the injured/petitioner as mentioned in the disability certificate, this Tribunal hereby grant compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner. DETERMINATION OF LOSS OF INCOME DURING TREATMENT PERIOD 11.9 The injured/petitioner/claimant has claimed that he used to work as labourer at Cement siding of loading and unloading of cement bags and he was earning approximately Rs.20,000/- per month. The injured has however not placed on record any document to prove that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month at the time of incident. Hence, he has failed to prove any definite amount of income at the time of incident. The injured has also not filed any educational qualifications documents. PW-1/petitioner has deposed that he was working as labourer at Delhi. So, it is proved on record that the injured was living and working as labourer in Delhi at the time of incident. So, the income of the injured needs to be assessed on the basis of chart available of minimum wages of unskilled person of Government of NCT of Delhi as on date of incident. The minimum wages for an unskilled person of Government of NCT Ramsharan Yadav @ Ram Sawrup Yadav @ Ram Saran Yadav Vs. Subhash Yadav & Ors.
MACT No.439/2021 Page No.21 of 32 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.09.12
10:32:36 +0530
of Delhi as on date of accident i.e. 12.08.2020 were Rs.14,842/- per month.
11.10 Accordingly, the monthly income of the injured is considered as Rs.14,842/- per month on the date of accident. 11.11 Considering the nature of injuries and duration of the treatment of the injured/petitioner, this tribunal is of the opinion that injured/petitioner must have not been able to work for about 12 month. Accordingly, this tribunal hereby grant compensation of sum of Rs.1,78,104/- (Rs.14,842/- x 12) towards loss of income during treatment period.
DETERMINATION OF LOSS OF FUTURE EARNINGS 11.12 This Tribunal has received the disability certificate of the petitioner from Guru Gobind Singh Government Hospital, Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi. In the disability certificate, it has been specifically mentioned that the petitioner is suffering 77% temporary disability in relation to right upper limb and lower limb.
ASSESSMENT OF FUNCTIONAL DISABILITY 11.13 The injured/petitioner has claimed that he was working as labourer at Cement siding of loading and unloading of cement bags. He was earning approximately Rs.20,000/- per month at the time of incident. The age of victim has been ascertained as 43 years at the time of incident. As per disability certificate of the injured available on record, the injured was found having 77% temporary disability in relation to right upper limb and lower limb. PW2 Dr. Sumant Sinha, Incharge Orthopadeics, Guru Gobind Singh Government Hospital, Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi who was one of the members of board which assessed the disability has deposed in his evidence Ramsharan Yadav @ Ram Sawrup Yadav @ Ram Saran Yadav Vs. Subhash Yadav & Ors.
MACT No.439/2021 Page No.22 of 32 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.09.12 10:32:41 +0530
that though injuries suffered by the injured have been received in road side accident, however, disabilities are temporary in nature. He has also deposed that the injured have implants upon fracture received upon right humerus and right neck of femur and those fractures have not yet healed. The injured has been advised by doctors to undergo operation for healing. The permanent disability remains if any after those operations could be assessed after completion of that treatment. So, it is clear that the petitioner/injured has not suffered either of the permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement as envisaged by the Act for grant of loss of future earnings. So, he is not entitled for any award under head of future earnings.
LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY/LOSS OF FUTURE EARNING 11.14 In view of the discussions in paragraph no.11.13,
petitioner is not entitled for any amount under this head. AWARD TOWARDS LOSS OF AMENITIES OF LIFE 11.15 As has been already observed that petitioner/injured has not suffered any permanent disability in the incident in question, therefore, he is not entitled for any award under this head.
AWARD TOWARDS LOSS OF EXPECTATION OF LIFE 11.16 As has been already observed that petitioner/injured has not suffered any permanent disability in the incident in question, therefore, he is not entitled for any award under this head also.
AWARD QUA SPECIAL DIET 11.17 Though, there is no cogent evidence on record of money spent by the petitioner upon special diet, yet considering Ramsharan Yadav @ Ram Sawrup Yadav @ Ram Saran Yadav Vs. Subhash Yadav & Ors.
MACT No.439/2021 Page No.23 of 32 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.09.12
10:32:45 +0530
the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner and duration of his treatment in the hospitals, this Tribunal is of the opinion that petitioner must have spent some money under this head. Hence, this Tribunal hereby grant compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards expenses incurred on special diet. AWARD TOWARDS ATTENDANT CHARGES 11.18 Though, there is no cogent evidence on record for the money spent by the petitioner upon attendant, yet considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner and the duration of the treatment of the petitioner in the hospital, this tribunal is of the opinion that petitioner must have spent some money under this head also. Hence, this Tribunal hereby grant compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards attendant charges.
AWARD TOWARDS CONVEYANCE CHARGES 11.19 Though there is no cogent evidence on record of money spent by the petitioner upon conveyance, yet considering the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the injured/petitioner must have been spent some money under this head. Hence, this Tribunal hereby grant compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards expenses incurred on conveyance.
IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THIS TRIBUNAL AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS TABULATED HEREIN BELOW : -
S.No. Heads of Compensation Amount in Rupees
1. Reimbursement of medical 76,313/-
expenses
2. Compensation on account of NIL future treatment
3. Pain and Suffering 2,00,000/-
4. Conveyance 20,000/-
Ramsharan Yadav @ Ram Sawrup Yadav @ Ram Saran Yadav Vs. Subhash Yadav & Ors.
MACT No.439/2021 Page No.24 of 32 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.09.12
10:32:48 +0530
5. Special diet 20,000/-
6. Attendant charges 20,000/-
7. Loss of Income during 1,78,104/-
treatment period
8. Compensation on account of NIL
disability
9. Loss of amenities of life NIL
10. Loss of expectation of life NIL
Total 5,14,417/-
RELIEF:-
12. This Tribunal hereby pass an award of Rs.5,14,417/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Four Hundred and Seventeen Only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 7% per annum including interim award, if any from the date of filing the DAR/claim petition i.e. 29.10.2021 till the date of the payment of the award amount, in favour of petitioner/claimant and against the respondents on account of their liability being joint and several.
APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY
13. As the offending vehicle was admittedly insured with the respondent no.03/Insurance company, respondent no.03/insurance company is hereby directed to deposit the award amount in favour of the petitioner(s) with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi in MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account No.40711767202, CIF No.90891362578, IFSC Code - SBIN0000726, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi as stated herein above within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this award together with the interest as stated herein above under intimation to this Tribunal and under intimation to the petitioner(s)/claimant(s)/applicant(s). In case of Ramsharan Yadav @ Ram Sawrup Yadav @ Ram Saran Yadav Vs. Subhash Yadav & Ors.
MACT No.439/2021 Page No.25 of 32 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.09.12 10:32:54 +0530
any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP)
14. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No.842/2003 titled as "Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. " has formulated MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme) vide its order dated 07.12.2018 which was made effective from 01.01.2019. The State Bank of India, Tis Hazari, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
15. Keeping in mind the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the respondent no.03/insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs.5,14,417/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Four Hundred and Seventeen Only) as stated herein above with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi in the MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account No.40711767202 CIF No.90891362578, IFSC Code - SBIN0000726 in favour the petitioner(s)/applicant(s)/ claimant(s) as stated herein above.
16. Manager, SBI Tis Hazari Delhi is directed to release Rs.2,14,417/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Four Hundred and Seventeen Only) in the MACT account of petitioner bearing MACT Account No. 42953251062 maintained with SBI, Rajdhani Enclave Branch, IFSC Code: SBIN0017983.
17. The rest of the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and interest Ramsharan Yadav @ Ram Sawrup Yadav @ Ram Saran Yadav Vs. Subhash Yadav & Ors.
MACT No.439/2021 Page No.26 of 32 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.09.12 10:33:02 +0530
shall be kept in equal monthly FDR's of Rs.10,000/- each for the period of 30 months of principal amount and for further months dividing the interest by Rs.10,000/-. The remainder, if any, of said division shall be added in the last FDR. All FDRs shall be numbered from 1st to last and shall be released from 1st to last in each consecutive month with interest accumulated in the MACT account of petitioner. Money shall be withdrawn through withdrawal slip only.
18. The following conditions shall be adhered to by State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch, Delhi with respect to the fixed deposits : -
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the MACT bank account of the claimant (s) near the place of their residence.
(d) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(e) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card (s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(f) 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.
(g) 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 (g) above.
19. In accordance with the orders dated 08.02.2019 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 in Ramsharan Yadav @ Ram Sawrup Yadav @ Ram Saran Yadav Vs. Subhash Yadav & Ors.
MACT No.439/2021 Page No.27 of 32 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.09.12 10:33:06 +0530
"Rajesh Tyagi and others Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors." , Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager has been appointed as Nodal Officer of State Bank of India having Phone No.022- 22741336/9414048606 and e mail ID [email protected]. In case of any assistance or non compliance, the aforesaid Nodal Officer may be contacted. A copy of this order be sent by e- mail to the aforesaid Nodal Officer of the aforesaid bank by the Ahlmad of the Court immediately in accordance with the directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as given in the orders dated 07.12.2018. The Nodal Officer of the bank shall ensure the disbursement of the award amount within three weeks of the receipt of the e-mail as mentioned in the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
20. The respondent no.03/Insurance Company shall deposit the award amount with the account of this Tribunal within 45 days. Nazir of this Court shall prepare a separate file regarding the status of deposition/non-deposition of the award amount by the respondent(s) after making necessary entry on CIS on 08.11.2024.
21. A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost through email.
22. Ahlmad staff is directed to send the copy of award to Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022[(Directions at serial nos.39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
23. Ahlmad staff is also directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Ramsharan Yadav @ Ram Sawrup Yadav @ Ram Saran Yadav Vs. Subhash Yadav & Ors.
MACT No.439/2021 Page No.28 of 32 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.09.12
10:33:11 +0530
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors." decided on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-email an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex Branch for information.
24. File be consigned to Record Room after due Digitally signed compliance. HARVINDER by HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Announced in the open Tribunal Date: 2024.09.12 10:33:14 +0530 on 11th of September, 2024.
(HARVINDER SINGH) District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01, West/THC/Delhi/11.09.2024 Ramsharan Yadav @ Ram Sawrup Yadav @ Ram Saran Yadav Vs. Subhash Yadav & Ors.
MACT No.439/2021 Page No.29 of 32FORM-XVI SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE
1. Date of accident : 12.08.2020
2. Name of the injured : Ramsharan Yadav @ Ram Sawrup Yadav @ Ram Saran Yadav
3. Age of the injured : 01.01.1977 (DOB)
4. Occupation of the injured: Not proved
5. Income of the injured : Rs.14,842/- per month
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken : 20.08.2020 to 24.03.2023
8. Period of Hospitalization : 20.08.2020 to 25.08.2020
9. Whether any permanent disability ? : Yes If yes, give details : NIL
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss :-
(i) Expenditure on 76,313/-
treatment
(ii) Expenditure on Rs.20,000/-
conveyance
(iii) Expenditure on special Rs.20,000/-
diet
(iv) Cost of Rs.20,000/-
nursing/attendant
(v) Loss of earning capacity NIl
(vi) Loss of Income Rs. 1,78,104/-
(loss of earning during
treatment period)
(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 NIL
mental and physical
Ramsharan Yadav @ Ram Sawrup Yadav @ Ram Saran Yadav Vs. Subhash Yadav & Ors.
MACT No.439/2021 Page No.30 of 32 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.09.12
10:33:19 +0530
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.2,00,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life NIL
(iv) Dis-figuration NA
(v) Loss of marriage NA
prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, NA
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 NIL
assessed and nature of
disability as permanent
or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or NIL
loss of expectation of
life span on account of
disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of NIL
earning capacity in
relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - NIL
(Income x% Earning
Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL Rs.5,14,417/-
COMPENSATION
15. INTEREST AWARDED 7% per annum
16. Interest amount up to Rs.1,03,326/
the date of award (w.e.f. 29.10.2021 to
11.09.2024 i.e. 02 years, 10
months and 13 days)
17. TOTAL AMOUNT Rs.6,17,743/-
INCLUDING (Rs.5,14,417/- +
INTEREST Rs.1,03,326/-)
18. Award amount released Rs.2,14,417/-
19. Award amount kept in Rs.3,00,000/- along with
FDRs interest accrued
Ramsharan Yadav @ Ram Sawrup Yadav @ Ram Saran Yadav Vs. Subhash Yadav & Ors.
MACT No.439/2021 Page No.31 of 32 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.09.12
10:33:23 +0530
20. Mode of disbursement Mentioned in the award
of the award amount to
the claimant (s).
21. Next date for 08.11.2024
compliance of the
award.
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2024.09.12
10:33:26 +0530
(HARVINDER SINGH)
District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01,
West/THC/Delhi/11.09.2024
Ramsharan Yadav @ Ram Sawrup Yadav @ Ram Saran Yadav Vs. Subhash Yadav & Ors.
MACT No.439/2021 Page No.32 of 32