Delhi District Court
Gaganpreet Singh, Paramjeet Singh And ... vs . Narayan Singh & Ors. on 21 September, 2021
MACP No. 5249/16
Gaganpreet Singh, Paramjeet Singh and Satyanarain Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA,
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 5249/16
1. Gaganpreet Singh Vs. Narain Singh & Ors.
Sh. Gaganpreet Singh
s/o Sh. Pritam Singh
R/o Plot no.39, Second Floor,
Pocket21, Sector24, Rohini, Delhi110085
................Petitioner
2. Paramjeet Singh vs. Narain Singh & Ors.
Sh.Paramjeet Singh
S/o Sh. Sardar Lal Singh,
R/o F5/296, 1st Floor,
Sector16, Rohini, Delhi110089 .........Petitioner
3. Satynarain Vs. Narain Singh & ors.
Sh. Satynarain .........Injured
S/o Sh.Ramphal
R/o House no.227, Terapursoli Bhag1,
PS Arwal, Teh. Sawaljpur, District Hardoi
Uttar Pradesh.
VERSUS
1. Sh. Narayan Singh Rawat ....... Driver
S/o Sh. Bhanwar Singh
R/o Ratriya, Raipur, District Pali, Rajasthan
2. Sh. Gaje Singh ........Regd. owner
R/o VPO Jharoda Kalan, Delhi.
2. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. ........ Insurer
60, Okhla Industrial Esate
New Delhi. ...............Respondents
Page no.1 of total 27 MACP No. 5249/16 Gaganpreet Singh, Paramjeet Singh and Satyanarain Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors.
Date of Institution : 03.01.2013
Date of Arguments : 18.09.2021
Date of Decision : 21.09.2021
APPEARANCES: Sh. Vijay Upadhyay, Ld.counsel for all three petitioners.
Driver and owner are already exparte.
Sh. Sujit Jaiswal, Ld.counsel for insurance company.
Petition under Section 166 & 140 of M.V. Act, 1988 for grant of compensation AWARD
1. The present three claims of the claimants/injured persons Sh. Gaganpreet Singh, Paramjeet Singh and Sh. Satynarain Singh are arising out of the Detailed Accident Report (DAR) filed in the FIR no.229/12, PS Alipur, Delhi. In the present Detailed Accident Report (DAR), the petitioners/injured persons Sh. Gaganpreet Singh, Paramjeet Singh and Satynarain are seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by them in the Motor Vehicular Accident which occurred on 18.07.2012 near Shani Mandir Traffic Signal, Palla Alipur, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Alipur, Delhi involving the truck bearing registration no.HR63A 5776(alleged offending vehicle) being driven by respondent no.1 in rash and negligent manner. Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter called DAR) filed by police, was treated as claim petition under Section 166(4) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'MV Act').
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.07.2012, the injured Sh. Gaganpreet Singh, Sh. Paramjeet Singh and Sh. Satynarain were going in car bearing registration no. DL12CC4633 which was being driven by the injured Sh. Gaganpreet Singh and at about 10.28 Pm when they reached near Shani Mandir Traffic Signal, Palla, Alipur, Delhi in the meantime the truck bearing no. HR63A Page no.2 of total 27 MACP No. 5249/16 Gaganpreet Singh, Paramjeet Singh and Satyanarain Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors.
5776 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent no.1 suddenly took sharp turn towards right and suddenly applied brakes without giving any indication, due to which the car of the injured persons struck against the trolla on its back side. Due to forceful impact all the occupants of the car suffered multiple injuries and they were removed to SRHC Hospital where their MLC was prepared. Accident was reported to the police and case vide FIR No. 229/12, under Section 279/338 IPC was registered against the respondent no.1 at PS Alipur. It is stated that the accident was caused solely due to negligence of respondent no.1 Sh. Narain Singh and the offending vehicle was owned by Sh.Gaje Singh and was insured with Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd./R3 at the relevant time of accident.
3. Notice of the DAR was issued to the respondents by the Investigating Officer. Respondents driver and owner had appeared at the time of filing of DAR and thereafter they did not appear and were proceeded exparte vide order dated 31.01.2013. It be noted that thereafter the claim petition was dismissed for non appearance vide order dated 18.04.2017. The petitioners moved separate applications under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC for restoration of the claim petition. Notice of the restoration applications was issued to the respondents. Respondents driver and owner appeared on the notice of restoration application on 04.09.2017 and had not filed reply/written statement and their opportunity to file reply was closed vide order dated 11.12.2017 and restoration applications were allowed.
4. Respondent no.3 insurance company filed written statement stating therein that the alleged vehicle bearing on. HR63A5776 was insured with it vide policy no. 1306712334002924 valid for the period from 16.10.2011 to Page no.3 of total 27 MACP No. 5249/16 Gaganpreet Singh, Paramjeet Singh and Satyanarain Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors.
15.10.2012. That the car of the petitioners had hit the offending vehicle from behind. That the sudden applying of brakes is not sign of rashness or negligence but it shows that the driver of the offending vehicle was vigilant. That the accident took place due to negligence on the part of car driver who was not able to control his vehicle and rammed into the offending vehicle from behind. That there was no negligence on the part of driver of alleged offending vehicle. It is denied that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation.
5. From pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 31.01.2013:
1. Whether the injured persons sustained injuries due to the road accident occurred on 18.07.2012 at 10.28 PM at Palla Red light, Alipur, Delhi within jurisdiction of PS Alipur with the hitting of the vehicle bearing no. HR63A 5776 driven by its driver/respondent no.1? OPP
2. Whether injured are entitled to seek compensation to what extent and from which respondents? OPP
3. Relief.
6. In support of their claim, the petitioners have examined four witnesses i.e. the injured Sh. Gaganpreet Singh examined himself as PW1, injured Paramjeet Singh examined himself as PW2, injured Satynarain examined himself as PW3 and Dr. Abhimanyu Singh, Assistant Professor, BSA Hospital was examined as PW4. No other witness was examined and PE was closed vide order dated 02.03.2020. On the other hand respondents driver and owner have not even filed their written statement and were proceeded exparte. Respondent no.3/insurance company has also not examined any witness in defence and its evidence was closed vide order dated 02.03.2020.
Page no.4 of total 27 MACP No. 5249/16 Gaganpreet Singh, Paramjeet Singh and Satyanarain Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors.
7. I have already heard the arguments addressed by Sh. Vijay Upadhyay, Ld.counsel for petitioners and Sh. Sujit Jaiswal, Ld.counsel for insurance company. I have carefully gone through the record. My findings on the issues are as under: ISSUE NO. 1.
8. In order to prove the negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle, the testimonies of all three injured persons PW1 Sh. Gaganpreet Singh, PW2 Sh. Paramjeet Singh and PW3 Sh. Satynarain are relevant. They adduced evidence by way of affidavits Ex. PW1/A, Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW3/A respectively. They deposed that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck bearing registration no.HR63A5776 as the driver of the said truck suddenly turned the truck towards right side and applied brakes without any indication. They deposed that the case vide FIR no. 229/12, under Section 279/338 IPC was registered against respondent no.1. They relied upon the documents filed alongwith the DAR Ex. PW1/8(colly).
9. It is argued on behalf of insurance company that the accident took place due to negligence of the car driver as he hit the alleged offending vehicle from behind. It is argued that there was no negligence on the part of respondent no.1 and the present claim is liable to be dismissed.
10. It is evident from the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW3 that the respondents could not impeach their testimony through litmus test of cross examination and said witnesses are found to have successfully withstood the test of crossexamination. Respondents driver and owner have not even cared to file Page no.5 of total 27 MACP No. 5249/16 Gaganpreet Singh, Paramjeet Singh and Satyanarain Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors.
written statement/reply. There is nothing on record to support the bald averment made on behalf of insurance company. The respondents have not led any evidence to rebut the testimonies of aforesaid witness on the aspect of accident in question being caused due to rash and negligent driving of alleged offending vehicle. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the uncontroverted testimony of this witnesses made on oath. Respondents have not adduced any evidence to prove that the accident took place due to negligence of car driver.
11. It is pertinent to note that the respondent no.1/driver of aforesaid truck bearing registration no.HR63A5776 was the other material witness to throw light by testifying as to how and under what circumstances, the accident had taken place. However, he has preferred not to enter into the witness box. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of alleged truck bearing registration no. HR63A5776 by him. Mere the fact of hitting from behind is not itself sufficient to prove the negligence on the part of car driver unless the same is to be proved by cogent evidence.
12. Moreover, the respondent no. 1 namely Sh.Narain Singh Rawat (accused in State case) has been charge sheeted for offences punishable U/s 279/338 IPC by the investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending truck bearing registration no. HR 63A5776 by him. Same would also point out towards rash and negligent driving of aforesaid truck by respondent no.1.
13. Furthermore, the copy of the MLC of all the injured persons Page no.6 of total 27 MACP No. 5249/16 Gaganpreet Singh, Paramjeet Singh and Satyanarain Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors.
prepared at SRHC Hospital(which is part of DAR) shows that they were taken to said hospital with the history of RTA, immediately after the accident in question and they were found to have suffered simple(injured Gaganpreet Singh) and dangerous(injured Paramjeet Singh and Satynarain) injuries as mentioned therein. The said documents have also gone unchallanged on the part of respondents.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioners have been able to prove that they suffered injuries in the road traffic accident which took place on 18.07.2012 near Shani Mandir Traffic Signal, Palla Alipur, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS S. P. Badli, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration no.HR63A5776 by respondent no.1 Sh.Narain Singh. Thus, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2.
15. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly.
COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF INJURED SH.GAGANPREET SINGH MEDICAL EXPENSES
16. PW1 Sh. Gaganpreet Singh i.e. injured himself, has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit(Ex. PW1/A) that after the accident, he was taken to Page no.7 of total 27 MACP No. 5249/16 Gaganpreet Singh, Paramjeet Singh and Satyanarain Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors.
SRHC Hospital where his MLC was prepared. He further deposed that he was diagnosed with fracture patela left and multiple lacerated wound near left eye. He further deposed that he remained admitted in Saroj Hospital from 19.07.2021 to 21.07.2021 and also took medical treatment as OPD patient for a period of nine months. He relied upon the medical treatment bills and treatment record Ex. PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/2(colly). The Ocular testimony of the petitioner with regard to the injuries suffered in the present accident and regarding his medical treatment is duly supported with his medical treatment record. The medical treatment record of the petitioner prepared at Saroj Hospital and Heart Institute show that he remained admitted there from 19.07.2012 and was discharged on 21.07.2012 and he was found to have suffered fracture patela left and other injuries. The petitioner is also stated to have suffered 11% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb. Same is evident from the disability certificate dated 09.06.2018 Ex. PW1/7 issued by Medical Board of BSA Hospital.
17. It is relevant to note that the injured has filed on record the medical bills to the tune of Rs.55,600/ only. It is quite evident that the respondents have not disputed the authenticity and genuineness of the said medical bills during the course of inquiry. Respondents have also not led any evidence in rebuttal so as to create any doubt on the genuineness of said bills. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.55,600/ is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
LOSS OF INCOME
18. The petitioner in his affidavit Ex. PW1/A has stated that at the time of accident he was running his business and was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/ per month and due to this accident, he could not attend his business for six months.
Page no.8 of total 27 MACP No. 5249/16 Gaganpreet Singh, Paramjeet Singh and Satyanarain Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors.
19. In order to prove his income the petitioner has relied upon the copies of ITRs for the assessment year 201213 and 201314. Though in order to prove his income the petitioner has relied upon the ITRs for the assessment year 201213 and 201314, but the said ITRs have been filed after the accident. No ITR filed before the date of accident has been proved on record. The ITRs Ex. PW1/5(colly) are not sufficient enough to prove the income of the injured at the time of accident. The petitioner has also not filed the documentary proof of his educational qualifications. In view of aforesaid position, the income of the petitioner is taken as minimum wages of an unskilled worker prevalent at the time of accident i.e. on 18.07.2012 which were Rs.7020/.
20. The petitioner has claimed that due to the accidental injuries he could not attend his avocation for a period of six months. However, the petitioner has not filed any document showing that he was advised complete bed rest for any specific period. At the same time, it can not be overlooked that the petitioner had suffered fracture injuries. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and in view of the treatment record brought on record, it is presumed that he would not have been able to work at all atleast for a period of 3 months or so. Thus, a sum of Rs.21,060/(7020x 3) is awarded in favour of petitioner and against the respondent under this head..
PAIN AND SUFFERING
21. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter titled as " Vinod Kumar Bitoo Vs. Roshni & Ors." passed in appeal bearing no. MAC.APP 518/2010 decided on 05.07.12, has held as under: Page no.9 of total 27 MACP No. 5249/16 Gaganpreet Singh, Paramjeet Singh and Satyanarain Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors.
" It is difficult to measure the pain and suffering in terms of money which is suffered by a victim on account of serious injuries caused to him in a motor vehicle accident. Since the compensation is required to be paid for pain and suffering an attempt must be made to award compensation which may have some objective relation with the pain and suffering underwent by the victim. For this purpose, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts normally consider the nature of injury; the part of the body where the injuries were sustained, surgeries, if any, underwent by the victim, confinement in the hospital and the duration of treatment".
22. Injured himself as PW1 has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit(Ex PW1/A) that he had sustained dangerous injuries in the accident in question. As already noted above, the medical treatment record of the petitioner shows that he remained under treatment for a considerable period. Apart from this, the petitioner is also shown to have sustained permanent disability to the extent of 11% in relation to his left lower limb. Thus, he would have undergone great physical sufferings and mental shock on account of the accident in question. Keeping in view the medical treatment record of petitioner available on record and the nature of injuries suffered by him, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 50,000/ towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
23. As already mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that the petitioner remained under treatment for a considerable period. His disability certificate would also show that he had suffered 11% physical impairment in relation to his left lower limb. In order to prove the genuineness of the disability certificate the petitioner has examined Dr. Abhimanyu Singh, Assistant Professor, BSA Hospital as PW4. He deposed that he had examined the injured Page no.10 of total 27 MACP No. 5249/16 Gaganpreet Singh, Paramjeet Singh and Satyanarain Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors.
Sh. Gaganpreet Singh and issued the disability certificate Ex. PW1/7. He further deposed that the injured was found to have suffered 11% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb and the same is not likely to improve in future. He also deposed that due to the injuries sustained in the accident the injured would have mild difficulty in squatting on the floor and in sitting crosslegs and he would have moderate difficulty in taking turns. Looking at the extent of disability and in view of deposition of PW4 Dr. Abhimanyu Singh, notice can be taken of the fact that due to the disability suffered, the injured would not be able to enjoy general amenities of life after the accident in question, during rest of his life and his quality of life has been definitely affected. In view of the nature of injuries including permanent disability suffered by him, I award a notional sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life due to disability suffered in the present accident.
CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES
24. The petitioner has failed to lead any cogent evidence on record in respect of amount incurred by him on conveyance, special diet and attendant charges. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that the petitioner has suffered fracture injuries and consequent disability of 11% in relation to his left lower limb. Thus, he would have taken special rich protein diet for his speedy recovery and would have also incurred considerable amount towards conveyance charges while commuting to the concerned hospital as OPD patient for his regular check up & follow up during the period of his medical treatment. He would have been definitely helped by some person either outsider or from his family, to perform his daily activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of his medical treatment. In these facts and circumstances, I hereby award a sum of Rs.10,000/ Page no.11 of total 27 MACP No. 5249/16 Gaganpreet Singh, Paramjeet Singh and Satyanarain Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors.
each for conveyance, special diet and attendant charges to the petitioner.
Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:
1. Medical Expenses Rs. 55,600/
2. Loss of income Rs. 21,060/
3. Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/
4. Loss of general amenities and Rs. 1,50,000/ enjoyment of life due to disability
5. Conveyance, special diet and Rs. 30,000/ attendant charges Total Rs. 3,06,660/ Roundedoff to Rs. 3,06,700/ COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF INJURED SH. PARAMJEET SINGH.
MEDICAL EXPENSES
25. PW2 Sh. Paramjeet Singh i.e. injured himself, has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit(Ex. PW2/A) that after the accident, he was taken to SRHC Hospital where his MLC was prepared. He further stated he had suffered wound over forehead with pain in right eye and remained admitted in Dr. Saroj Hospital and Heart Institute from 19.07.2012 to 21.07.2012. He also deposed that he remained under treatment as an OPD patient in BSA Hospital, Hindu Rao Hospital, Narang Eye Hospital and Guru Nanak Eye Hospital for eye treatment and remained under treatment for about 3 years. He relied upon his medical bills and medical treatment record Ex. PW2/1.
26. It is argued on behalf of insurance company that as per MLC the petitioner had suffered simple injuries but later on his visual disability has been Page no.12 of total 27 MACP No. 5249/16 Gaganpreet Singh, Paramjeet Singh and Satyanarain Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors.
assessed at 30%. It is argued that the disability as suffered by the petitioner has no corelation with the injuries suffered in the present accident and vision loss is only a age factor.
27. It be noted that though as per MLC the nature of injuries have been mentioned as Simple but the examining doctor at SRHC hospital has noticed the wound on the forehead of the petitioner. Further when the petitioner was taken to Saroj Hospital on 19.07.2012, he was having complaint of pain in right eye. The further treatment record of the petitioner shows that he had taken treatment of eye due to the injuries suffered in the present accident. Vide order dated 17.05.2018 the petitioner was referred to the Medical Board of LNJP Hospital for assessment of disability. The Medical board was further directed to assess the disability, if any suffered by the injured in the present accident. In compliance of the said order report under the signatures of Dr. S. N. Basna, Deputy Medical Superintendent, Disability Medical Board, Lok Nayak Hospital was received and it is clearly mentioned in the said report that the said report has been issued in compliance of court order dated 17.05.2018 and the injured was found to have suffered visual disability between 20% and 40% of approximately 30%. In view of aforesaid report Ex. PW2/6, I have no hesitation to hold that the disability of 30% as suffered by the injured is only due to injuries sustained in the present accident.
28. It is relevant to note that the injured has filed on record the medical bills to the tune of Rs.32,038/ only. It is quite evident that the respondents have not disputed the authenticity and genuineness of the said medical bills during the course of inquiry. Respondents have also not led any evidence in rebuttal so as to create any doubt on the genuineness of said bills. Accordingly, a sum of Page no.13 of total 27 MACP No. 5249/16 Gaganpreet Singh, Paramjeet Singh and Satyanarain Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors.
Rs.32,038/ is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
LOSS OF INCOME
29. The petitioner in his affidavit Ex. PW2/A has stated that at the time of accident he was working as driver and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/ and due to the injuries suffered in the present accident he can not perform his avocation for lifetime.
30. Though the petitioner has claimed that he was earning a sum of Rs. 15,000/ per month but he has not filed documentary proof of his income and avocation. The petitioner has also not filed the documentary proof of his educational qualifications. In view of aforesaid position, the income of the petitioner is taken as minimum wages of an unskilled worker prevalent at the time of accident i.e. on 18.07.2012 which were Rs.7020/.
31. Though the petitioner has claimed that due to the disability suffered in the present accident, he can not do any work for the lifetime but the petitioner has not examined any medical expert in support of his submissions. The petitioner has not proved by cogent evidence that the nature of injuries and consequent disability suffered by him, incapacitated him for doing any work for his lifetime. The petitioner has not filed any document showing that he was advised complete bed rest for any specific period. However, it can not be overlooked that the petitioner had suffered injuries on forehead and right eye. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and in view of the treatment record brought on record, it is presumed that he would not have been able to work at all atleast for a period of 4 months or so. Thus, a sum of Rs.28,080/(7020x 4) is Page no.14 of total 27 MACP No. 5249/16 Gaganpreet Singh, Paramjeet Singh and Satyanarain Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors.
awarded in favour of petitioner and against the respondent under this head..
PAIN AND SUFFERING
32. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter titled as " Vinod Kumar Bitoo Vs. Roshni & Ors." passed in appeal bearing no. MAC.APP 518/2010 decided on 05.07.12, has held as under: " It is difficult to measure the pain and suffering in terms of money which is suffered by a victim on account of serious injuries caused to him in a motor vehicle accident. Since the compensation is required to be paid for pain and suffering an attempt must be made to award compensation which may have some objective relation with the pain and suffering underwent by the victim. For this purpose, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts normally consider the nature of injury; the part of the body where the injuries were sustained, surgeries, if any, underwent by the victim, confinement in the hospital and the duration of treatment".
33. Injured himself as PW2 has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit(Ex PW2/A) that he had sustained grievous injuries in the accident in question. As already noted above, the medical treatment record of the petitioner shows that he remained under treatment for a considerable period. Apart from this, the petitioner is also shown to have sustained vision disability to the extent of 30%. Thus, he would have undergone great physical sufferings and mental shock on account of the accident in question. Keeping in view the medical treatment record of petitioner available on record and the nature of injuries suffered by him, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 50,000/ towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
34. As already mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence on Page no.15 of total 27 MACP No. 5249/16 Gaganpreet Singh, Paramjeet Singh and Satyanarain Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors.
record to establish that the petitioner remained under treatment for a considerable period. His disability certificate Ex.PW2/6 would also show that he had suffered vision disability approximately to the extent of 30%. Looking at the extent of disability, notice can be taken of the fact that due to the disability suffered, the injured would not be able to enjoy general amenities of life after the accident in question, during rest of his life and his quality of life has been definitely affected. In view of the nature of injuries including permanent disability suffered by him, I award a notional sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life due to disability suffered in the present accident.
CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES
35. The petitioner has failed to lead any cogent evidence on record in respect of amount incurred by him on conveyance, special diet and attendant charges. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that the petitioner remained under treatment for a considerable period and suffered vision disability to the extent of 30% approximately. Thus, he would have taken special rich protein diet for his speedy recovery and would have also incurred considerable amount towards conveyance charges while commuting to the concerned hospital as OPD patient for his regular check up & follow up during the period of his medical treatment. He would have been definitely helped by some person either outsider or from his family, to perform his daily activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of his medical treatment. In these facts and circumstances, I hereby award a sum of Rs.10,000/ each for conveyance, special diet and attendant charges to the petitioner.
Page no.16 of total 27 MACP No. 5249/16 Gaganpreet Singh, Paramjeet Singh and Satyanarain Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors.
Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:
1. Medical Expenses Rs. 32,038/
2. Loss of income Rs. 28,080/
3. Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/
4. Loss of general amenities and Rs. 2,00,000/ enjoyment of life due to disability
5. Conveyance, special diet and Rs. 30,000/ attendant charges Total Rs. 3,40,118/ Roundedoff to Rs. 3,40,200/ COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF INJURED SH. SATYNARAIN.
MEDICAL EXPENSES
36. PW3 Sh. Satynarain i.e. injured himself, has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit(Ex. PW3/A) that after the accident, he was taken to SRHC Hospital where his MLC was prepared. He further stated he had suffered head and ear injury and remained admitted in Dr. RML Hospital w.e.f. 19.07.2012 to 04.08.2012. He further deposed that he remained under treatment as an OPD patient for about 6 months. He relied upon the discharge slip of Dr. RML Hospital Ex. PW3/1(colly). The ocular testimony of the petitioner regarding his nature of injuries and medical treatment is duly supported with medical treatment record. The copy of MLC of petitioner prepared at SRHC Hospital(which is part of DAR) shows the nature of injuries suffered by petitioner as dangerous. The discharge summary of the petitioner prepared at Dr. RML Hospital shows that he remained admitted in the said hospital on 19.07.2012 and was discharged on 04.08.2012.
37. The petitioner has claimed that he incurred a sum of Page no.17 of total 27 MACP No. 5249/16 Gaganpreet Singh, Paramjeet Singh and Satyanarain Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors.
Rs.1,00,000/ on his medical treatment. But in his crossexamination he stated that he has not filed any medical bills. In the absence of any original medical bills, the possibility of treatment being taken free of cost or reimbursement of the medical bills by any other authority can not be denied. In these circumstances, no amount is awarded under this head.
LOSS OF INCOME
38. The petitioner in his affidavit Ex. PW3/A has stated that at the time of accident he was working as labour and was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/ and due to the injuries suffered in the present accident he can not perform his avocation for a period of six months.
39. Though the petitioner has claimed that he was earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/ per month but he has not filed documentary proof of his income and avocation. The petitioner has also not filed the documentary proof of his educational qualifications. In view of aforesaid position, the income of the petitioner is taken as minimum wages of an unskilled worker prevalent at the time of accident i.e. on 18.07.2012 which were Rs.7020/.
40. Though the petitioner has claimed that due to the disability suffered in the present accident, he could not do his work for a period of six months but the petitioner has not filed any document showing that he was advised complete bed rest for any specific period. However, it can not be overlooked that the petitioner had suffered serious injuries. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and in view of the treatment record brought on record, it is presumed that he would not have been able to work at all atleast for a period of 3 Page no.18 of total 27 MACP No. 5249/16 Gaganpreet Singh, Paramjeet Singh and Satyanarain Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors.
months or so. Thus, a sum of Rs.21,060/(7020x 3) is awarded in favour of petitioner and against the respondent under this head..
PAIN AND SUFFERING
41. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter titled as " Vinod Kumar Bitoo Vs. Roshni & Ors." passed in appeal bearing no. MAC.APP 518/2010 decided on 05.07.12, has held as under: " It is difficult to measure the pain and suffering in terms of money which is suffered by a victim on account of serious injuries caused to him in a motor vehicle accident. Since the compensation is required to be paid for pain and suffering an attempt must be made to award compensation which may have some objective relation with the pain and suffering underwent by the victim. For this purpose, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts normally consider the nature of injury; the part of the body where the injuries were sustained, surgeries, if any, underwent by the victim, confinement in the hospital and the duration of treatment".
42. Injured himself as PW3 has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit(Ex PW3/A) that he had sustained dangerous injuries in the accident in question. As already noted above, the medical treatment record of the petitioner shows that he remained under treatment for a considerable period. Apart from this, the petitioner is also shown to have sustained permanent disability to the extent of 38% in relation to his whole body. Thus, he would have undergone great physical sufferings and mental shock on account of the accident in question. Keeping in view the medical treatment record of petitioner available on record and the nature of injuries suffered by him, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 50,000/ towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
Page no.19 of total 27 MACP No. 5249/16 Gaganpreet Singh, Paramjeet Singh and Satyanarain Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors.
LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
43. As already mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that the petitioner remained under treatment for a considerable period. His disability certificate would also show that he had suffered 38% physical impairment in relation to his whole body. Thus, he would not be able to enjoy general amenities of life after the accident in question, during rest of his life and his quality of life has been definitely affected. In view of the nature of injuries including permanent disability suffered by him and his continued treatment for considerable period, I award a notional sum of Rs. 50,000/ towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life to the petitioner.
CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES
44. The petitioner has failed to lead any cogent evidence on record in respect of amount incurred by him on conveyance, special diet and attendant charges. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that the petitioner has suffered dangerous injuries and consequent disability of 38% in relation to his whole body. Thus, he would have taken special rich protein diet for his speedy recovery and would have also incurred considerable amount towards conveyance charges while commuting to the concerned hospital as OPD patient for his regular check up & follow up during the period of his medical treatment. He would have been definitely helped by some person either outsider or from his family, to perform his daily activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of his medical treatment. In these facts and circumstances, I hereby award a sum of Rs.20,000/ each for conveyance, special diet and attendant charges to the petitioner.
Page no.20 of total 27 MACP No. 5249/16 Gaganpreet Singh, Paramjeet Singh and Satyanarain Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors.
LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME
45. As already stated above, the petitioner is shown to have sustained 38% permanent physical impairment in relation to his whole body. Same is quite evident from Disability Certificate dated 11.12.2019 of Medical Board of Lok Nayak Hospital, Delhi.
46. It is argued on behalf of insurance company that the petitioner has not examined the signatory of disability certificate dated 11.12.2019 and to prove the functional disability. It is argued that the disability mentioned in the disability certificate dated 11.12.2019 is towards much higher side and is not in terms of guidelines issued by the Ministry of Social Justice.
47. Here it be noted that vide order dated 17.05.2018 the petitioner was referred to the Medical Board of LNJP Hospital for assessment of disability. The Medical board was further directed to assess the disability, if any suffered by the injured in the present accident. In compliance of the said order report under the signatures of Dr.Sumit Arora, Dr. Swapan Gupta and Dr. Viresh Kumar, the Members of Disability Medical Board, Lok Nayak Hospital was received and it is clearly mentioned in the said report that the said report has been issued in compliance of court order dated 17.05.2018. The medical board has opined the disability of the petitioner as 38% in relation to whole body which is permanent in nature. Since the disability board of Lok Nayak hospital has issued the disability board on the directions of this tribunal, there is no occasion to doubt the genuineness of the said disability certificate dated 11.12.2019. The insurance company has also not adduced evidence to the contrary, thereby challanging the authenticity of the disability certificate. Taking into consideration the disability Page no.21 of total 27 MACP No. 5249/16 Gaganpreet Singh, Paramjeet Singh and Satyanarain Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors.
certificate dated 11.12.2019 the functional disability of the petitioner is taken as 38% with regard to whole body.
48. The copy of PAN card of the injured shows his date of birth to be 01.01.1994. The date of accident is 18.07.2012. In view of said document, his age was about 18 years and six months of age as on the date of accident. Hence, the appropriate multiplier would be 18 in view of recent pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", passed in SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17. The monthly notional income of petitioner has been taken as Rs.7020/ per month as discussed above. Thus, the loss of monthly future income would be Rs.2667/(Rs.7020x 38/100 ). The total loss of future income would be Rs.8,06,500/(Rs.2667x 140/100 x 12 x18). (Reliance placed on Jagdish Vs. Mohan & Ors. (2018) 4 SCC 571 and unreported decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in " The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deepak Arora & Ors.", MAC APP No. 320/2013 decided on 28.09.18). Thus, a sum of Rs. 8,06,500/ is awarded in favour of petitioner under this head.
Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:
1. Medical Expenses Rs. NIL
2. Loss of income Rs. 26,060/
3. Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/
4. Loss of general amenities and Rs. 50,000/ enjoyment of life
5. Conveyance, special diet and Rs. 60,000/ attendant charges
6. Loss of future income Rs. 8,06,500/ Total Rs. 9,92,560/ Rounded off to Rs. 9,92,600/ Page no.22 of total 27 MACP No. 5249/16 Gaganpreet Singh, Paramjeet Singh and Satyanarain Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors.
49. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Respondent no.3/insurance company has not proved any violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. Respondent no.1/driver is principal tortfeasor. Respondent no.2 registered owner is vicariously liable. Respondent no.3 being the insurer is liable to indemnify the insured. Hence, respondent no.3/insurance company is held liable to pay compensation amount. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF:
50. It be noted that vide order dated 29.09.2015 the interest on the award amount was curtailed from 18.03.2013 when the matter was fixed for PE till conclusion of PE. The petitioners had not examined any witness till 18.04.2017 when the claim petition was dismissed for non appearance. Vide order dated 11.12.2017 the separate applications for restoration of the claim petition moved on behalf of all the injured persons were allowed and it was directed that the petitioners shall not be entitled to any interest for the period of delay w.e.f. 18.04.2017 till the date of said order. In view of aforesaid conduct of the petitioners it is held that the petitioners are not entitled to the interest from 18.03.2013 till 18.04.2017.
51. In view of my findings on issues no. 1 and 2(supra), I award a compensation of Rs.3,06,700/ alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e.03.01.2013 till the date of its realization, except the aforesaid curtailed period of 18.03.2013 to 18.04.2017, in favour of petitioner/injured Sh. Gaganpreet Singh (Reliance placed on judgment "Oriental Insurance Company Page no.23 of total 27 MACP No. 5249/16 Gaganpreet Singh, Paramjeet Singh and Satyanarain Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors.
Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Devi & Ors bearing MAC. APP. 165/2011 decided on 22.02.2016).
52. I award a compensation of Rs.3,40,200/ alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e.03.01.2013 till the date of its realization, except the aforesaid curtailed period of 18.03.2013 to 18.04.2017, in favour of petitioner/injured Sh. Paramjeet Singh.
53. I award a compensation of Rs.9,92,600/ alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e.03.01.2013 till the date of its realization, except the aforesaid curtailed period of 18.03.2013 to 18.04.2017, in favour of petitioner/injured Sh. Satynarain Singh.
APPORTIONMENT
54. Statements of petitioners/claimants were recorded on different dates. Out of compensation amount of petitioner Sh. Gaganpreet Singh, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rupees One Lakh Only) is directed to be immediately released to him through his Saving Bank Account No.8747000100013137 with PNNB having IFSC Code no. PUNB0874700 and remaining amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 10,000/ each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
55. Out of compensation amount of injured Sh. Paramjeet Singh, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rupees One Lakh Only) is directed to be immediately released to him through his Saving Bank Account No.6582000100090191 with PNB having IFSC Code no.PUNB0658200 and remaining amount is directed to be kept in the Page no.24 of total 27 MACP No. 5249/16 Gaganpreet Singh, Paramjeet Singh and Satyanarain Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors.
form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 10,000/ each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
56. Out of compensation amount of injured Sh.Satynarain, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/ (Rupees Two Lacs Only) is directed to be immediately released to him through his Saving Bank Account No.743210110006122 with Bank of India, Village Arwal West, PO Harpalpur, District Hardoi, UP Branch and remaining amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 10,000/ each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
57. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card Page no.25 of total 27 MACP No. 5249/16 Gaganpreet Singh, Paramjeet Singh and Satyanarain Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors.
to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and /or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank alongwith the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause(g) above.
(i) The petitioner is directed to open a Motor Accident Claims Annuity (Term) Deposit Account (MACAD) in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 of Hon'ble Justice J.R. Midha in case titled as Rajesh Tyagi and Others Vs. Jaibir Singh and Others F.A.O No. 842/03 as per clause 31 of MCTAP and form VIII titled as Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme as directed in the said order.
(j) Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court branch is further directed to disburse the FD amount in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme account as directed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.18, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
58. Respondent no.3, insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount with SBI, Rohini Courts branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the respective share amounts directed to be released immediately to aforesaid petitioners in their aforesaid saving bank accounts mentioned supra, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. He be further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimants approach the bank for disbursement so that the award amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the Page no.26 of total 27 MACP No. 5249/16 Gaganpreet Singh, Paramjeet Singh and Satyanarain Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors.
cheques. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioners and respondent no.3/insurance company for compliance. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank passbooks and copy of residence proof of the petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance. Form XVI and XVII in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as AnnexureA. Copy of order be also sent to concerned M.M and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP.
Announced in the open Court on 21.09.2021 (DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA) Judge MACT2 (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi Certified that above award contains 27 pages and each page is signed by me.
(DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA) Judge MACT2 (North) Rohini Courts,Delhi Page no.27 of total 27