Delhi District Court
Aminder (I) (547/21 Wazirabad) vs Pranjul Kumar on 6 October, 2023
DLCT010150392021
Presented on : 08-11-2021
Registered on : 12-11-2021
Decided on : 06-10-2023
Duration : 1 Year
10Months
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF PRESIDING OFFICER-MACT-02,
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED OVER BY DR. PANKAJ SHARMA
IN THE MATTER OF CASE / MACT No. 807/21(LEAD
CASE)
(For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries
sustained by the injured Sh. Aminder :
AMINDER
S/o Sh. Sushil Kumar
R/o H.No. 6-A, Shivani Enclave,
Phase-2, Kakarula, Delhi-110078. .....Petitioner
VERSUS
1. PRANJUL KUMAR
S/o Sh. Pradeep Kumar
R/o Vill Fajalpur, PS Minauli,
Distt. Bagpat, U.P. (Driver).
2. RAHUL KUMAR
S/o Sh. Bhanwar Singh
R/o Vill Fajalpur, PS Minauli,
Distt. Bagpat, U.P.(Owner).
MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 1/63
Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2023.10.07
12:45:58 +0530
3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
(Insurer)
........Respondents.
AND DLCT010150432021 Presented on : 08-11-2021 Registered on : 12-11-2021 Decided on : 06-10-2023 Duration : 1 Year 10Months IN THE MATTER OF CASE / MACT No. 805/21 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Garvit) :
GARVIT S/o Sh. Aminder R/o 6-A, Shivani Enclave, Phase-2, Kakarula, Delhi-110078. .....Petitioner VERSUS
1. PRANJUL KUMAR S/o Sh. Pradeep Kumar R/o Vill Fajalpur, PS Minauli, Distt. Bagpat, U.P. (Driver).
2. RAHUL KUMAR S/o Sh. Bhanwar Singh MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 2/63 Digitally signedPANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.10.07 12:46:06 +0530 R/o Vill Fajalpur, PS Minauli, Distt. Bagpat, U.P.(Owner).
3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (Insurer) ........Respondents AND DLCT010150412021 Presented on : 08-11-2021 Registered on : 12-11-2021 Decided on : 06-10-2023 Duration : 1 Year 10Months IN THE MATTER OF CASE / MACT No. 808/21 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Kavita) :
KAVITA W/o Sh.Sonu R/o H.No.A-25 B, A-Block, Vikas Vihar, Kakroa, Delhi-110078. .....Petitioner VERSUS
1. PRANJUL KUMAR S/o Sh. Pradeep Kumar R/o Vill Fajalpur, PS Minauli, Distt. Bagpat, U.P. (Driver).
MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 3/63 Digitally signedPANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.10.07 12:46:20 +0530
2. RAHUL KUMAR S/o Sh. Bhanwar Singh R/o Vill Fajalpur, PS Minauli, Distt. Bagpat, U.P.(Owner).
3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (Insurer) ........Respondents.
AND
DLCT010150422021
Presented on : 08-11-2021
Registered on : 12-11-2021
Decided on : 06-10-2023
Duration : 1 Year
10Months
IN THE MATTER OF CASE / MACT No. 809/21 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Anita) :
ANITA KUMARI W/o Sh. Aminder R/o 6-A, Shivani Enclave, Phase-2, Kakarula, Delhi-110078. .....Petitioner VERSUS MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 4/63 Digitally signed by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2023.10.07 12:46:40 +0530
1. PRANJUL KUMAR S/o Sh. Pradeep Kumar R/o Vill Fajalpur, PS Minauli, Distt. Bagpat, U.P. (Driver).
2. RAHUL KUMAR S/o Sh. Bhanwar Singh R/o Vill Fajalpur, PS Minauli, Distt. Bagpat, U.P.(Owner).
3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (Insurer) ........Respondents.
The particulars as per Form-XVII, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) are as under:-
1. Date of the accident 19.07.2021
2. Date of filing of Form-I - First Accident Report N.A. (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the victim(s) N.A.
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Driver N.A.
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Owner N.A.
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim Accident N.A. Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form-VIB N.A. from the Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - Detailed Accident 21.11.2021 Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 5/63 Digitally signedPANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.10.07 12:46:47 +0530 whether any action/ direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer Not mentioned by the Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance N.A. Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on N.A. the part of the Designated officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the petitioner(s) to the offer N.A. of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 06.10.2023
15. Whether the petitioner (s) was/were directed to Yes open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) was/were 09.03.2022 directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar 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) produced the 17.08.2023 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 of the Address of Claimant(s). petitioners H.No. 6-A, Shivani Enclave, Phase-2, Kakarula, Delhi-
110078.
MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 6/63 Digitally signed by PANKAJPANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.07 12:47:06 +0530
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) Yes is near their place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) was/were examined at Yes the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
COMMON AWARD/JUDGMENT FACTUAL POSITION
1. These four separate DARs were filed on 12/11/2021 by the Investigating Officer. All the four DARs were prepared in respect of injuries sustained by one Sh. Aminder S/o Sh. Sushil Kumar (hereinafter referred to as 'injured'), second in respect of injuries sustained by Sh. Garvit ( whose name has inadvertently been mentioned as Gurpreet in the DAR) S/o Sh. Aminder (hereinafter referred to as 'injured'), third in respect of injuries sustained by Ms. Kavita W/o Sh. Sonu (hereinafter referred to as 'injured') and fourth in respect of injuries sustained by Smt. Anita Kumari W/o Sh. Aminder (hereinafter referred to as 'injured'). These DARs were prepared by IO in respect of a motor vehicular accident which occurred 19.07.2021 at about 05.45 A.M. at a spot near Gandhi Vihar Red Light. As per DARs, at the relevant time the the injured persons were going towards Baraut, UP from Pipal Chowk Kakaraula Village, Delhi in a EECO Van bearing MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 7/63 Digitally signedPANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.10.07 12:47:26 +0530 registration No. DL-9CAV-4445 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle') which being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at very high speed. It is further stated that the injured persons advised to driver of the above said vehicle to driver the said vehicle at normal speed and with due precaution but he did not care the advice of injured persons. It is further stated that at that time the driver of the above said vehicle said that he had to take CNG and took U-Turn in the wrong direction and injured persons asked him to take U-Turn from proper turn of the road but despite of their warning he took wrong U-Turn of abovesaid vehicle and at the same time a Truck container which was coming from Majnu Ka Teela side and running in his proper side and in order to save the EECO Van/ offending vehicle, the driver of the above said Truck/ Container applied brake and turned his Truck towards right side and overturned on EECO Van/ offending vehicle partially. As a result of which all the occupants of EECO Van received injuries. An FIR No. 547/2021 PS Wazirabad was registered U/s 279/337/338 IPC. R-1 is the driver of the offending vehicle. R-2 is the owner of the offending vehicle. R-3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. All the DARs were treated as 'claim petitions'. This Tribunal directed R-3/insurance company to file a legal offer/reasoned decision in response to the said DARs. R-1 and R- 2 were also directed to file their Written Statements in all the cases.
MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 8/63 Digitally signedPANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.10.07 12:47:39 +0530 PLEADINGS IN CASE/MACT No. 807/21(For Grant of Co mpensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Sh.
Aminder):
2.1 No written statement was filed by R-1 and R-2 and their right to file WS was closed vide order dated 12.09.2022 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal.
2.2 R-3/Insurance Company filed a written statement in which it has denied the contents of DAR in toto. It is averred that the offending vehicle was insured under the category of private use vehicle whereas the said vehicle has been used for commercial passenger vehicle at the time of alleged accident.
Therefore, there is contractual breach of policy and no liability be fastened upon the R-3/ Insurance Company and R-3/ Insurance Company be exonerated from the proceedings. PLEADINGS IN CASE/MACT No. 805/21 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Sh. Garvit):
3.1 No written statement was filed by R-1 and R-2 and their right to file WS was closed vide order dated 12.09.2022 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal.
MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 9/63 Digitally signed by PANKAJPANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.07 12:47:59 +0530 3.2 R-3/Insurance Company filed a written statement in which it has denied the contents of DAR in toto. It is averred that the offending vehicle was insured under the category of private use vehicle whereas the said vehicle has been used for commercial passenger vehicle at the time of alleged accident.
Therefore, there is contractual breach of policy and no liability be fastened upon the R-3/ Insurance Company and R-3/ Insurance Company be exonerated from the proceedings. PLEADINGS IN CASE/MACT No. 808/21 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Smt. Kavita):
4.1 No written statement was filed by R-1 and R-2 and their right to file WS was closed vide order dated 12.09.2022 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal.
4.2 R-3/Insurance Company filed a written statement in which it has denied the contents of DAR in toto. It is averred that the offending vehicle was insured under the category of private use vehicle whereas the said vehicle has been used for commercial passenger vehicle at the time of alleged accident. Therefore, there is contractual breach of policy and no liability be fastened upon the R-3/ Insurance Company and R-3/ Insurance Company be exonerated from the proceedings.
MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 10/63 Digitally signed by PANKAJPANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.07 12:48:09 +0530 PLEADINGS IN CASE/MACT No. 809/21 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Smt. Anita):
5.1 No written statement was filed by R-1 and R-2 and their right to file WS was closed vide order dated 12.09.2022 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal.
5.2 R-3/Insurance Company filed a written statement in which it has denied the contents of DAR in toto. It is averred that the offending vehicle was insured under the category of private use vehicle whereas the said vehicle has been used for commercial passenger vehicle at the time of alleged accident. Therefore, there is contractual breach of policy and no liability be fastened upon the R-3/ Insurance Company and R-3/ Insurance Company be exonerated from the proceedings.
ISSUES IN ALL THE MATTERS
6. Vide order dated 12/09/2022 the following consolidated issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal :-
1. Whether the petitioners Aminder, Garvit, Prabhat, Kavita & Anita suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 19.07.2021 at about 05.57 AM involving vehicle MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 11/63 Digitally signed by PANKAJPANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.07 12:48:22 +0530 bearing registration No. DL-9C- AV-4445 driven the Respondent No. 1 by the Respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, owned by the Respondent No.2 and insured with Respondent No.3?OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
7. CONSOLIDATION OF CASES All the above four matters were consolidated vide order dated 12.09.2022 and the matter for Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Sh. Aminder i.e. MACT No. 807/21 was treated as a 'Lead case''. Accordingly, evidence was recorded in the lead case.
EVIDENCE IN CASE NO. 807/21, 805/21 & 809/21 ( For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustai ned by Injured Aminder, Garvit and Anita) :
8. Injured Aminder examined himself as PW-1, who deposed, through his affidavit Ex. PW1/X, that at the relevant date, time and place, he alongwith wife Anita, son Garvit, sister- in-law Kavita and two other persons were going towards Baraut, UP from Pipal Chowk Kakaraula Village, Delhi in a EECO Van MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 12/63 Digitally signed by PANKAJPANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.07 12:48:30 +0530 bearing registration No. DL-9CAV-4445 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle') which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at very high speed. It is further stated that he advised to driver of the above said vehicle to driver the said vehicle at normal speed and with due precaution but he did not care the advice of injured persons. It is further stated that at that time the driver of the above said vehicle said that he had to take CNG and took U-Turn in the wrong direction and injured persons asked him to take U-Turn from proper turn of the road but despite of their warning he took wrong U-Turn of abovesaid vehicle and at the same time a Truck container which was coming from Majnu Ka Teela side and running in his proper side and in order to save the EECO Van/ offending vehicle, the driver of the above said Truck/ Container applied brake and turned his Truck towards right side and overturned on EECO Van/ offending vehicle partially. As a result of which all the occupants of EECO Van received injuries. He deposed that at the relevant time he was doing a private job and was earning Rs. 35,000/- per month. He also placed on record the following documents :-
"Ex. PW1/1(OSR) is the copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner;
Ex. PW1/2 (Colly) are the original treatment record and medical bills; Ex. PW1/3 is the original permanent MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 13/63 Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.10.07 12:48:45 +0530 disability certificate;
Ex. PW1/4 is original rehabilitation service proposal issued by Ottock Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd.;
Ex. PW1/5 (Colly) is the copy of academic certificate of petitioner; Ex. PW1/6 (Colly) is the copy of Aadhar Card of wife of petitioner Smt. Anita; Ex. PW1/7 (Colly) are the original treatment record and medical bills of wife of petitioner Smt. Anita; Ex. PW1/8 is copy of the Aadhar Card of son of petitioner Garvit;
Ex. PW1/9 (Colly) are the original treatment record and medical bills of son of petitioner Garvit;
Ex. PW1/10 (Colly) is the attested copy of DAR;
Ex. PW1/11 the salary certificate-cum- employment proof of petitioner;
Mark P are the photographs of
petitioner.''
8.1 He was cross-examined only by R-3/ Insurance
Company. In his cross-examination he deposed that on 19/07/201 MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 14/63
Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.07 12:49:09 +0530 at around 5.45 in the morning he had called for taxi to go from his house near Peepal Chowk to Baraut. He further deposed that vehicle bearing registration no. DL-9CAV-4445 came to pick. He further deposed that apart from him his wife Anita, son Garvit, sister-in-law Kavita were also travelling in the same car i.e. offending vehicle which was hired by him. He denied the suggestion that the driver of the offending vehicle was not rash and negligent where the driver of Truck container coming from Majnu Ka Tilla was negligent. He further deposed that the passenger vehicle in which they were travelling was running/ driven by Pranjul in very zig-zag manner and despite of his repeated advice, he continued to over the said vehicle and took the wrong side U-turn on the opposite side of the road and due to his over speeding he hit the truck container which was coming from its right side of the road. He further denied the suggestion that the vehicle bearing registration no. HR-63-C8453 was stationed in the middle of road without any warning reason the said accident took place. He further deposed that his wife Anita called the police and the police reached on the spot in around 15 minutes and ambulance took him and his wife Anita and son Garvit and his sister in-law Kavita in different ambulance. He further deposed that his statement was recorded by police in hospital Dr. Ram Manohar Lohya wherein he narrated all the facts about the negligence of the driver of vehicle. He denied the suggestion that he has not spent Rs. 50,000/- on special diet, Rs. MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 15/63 Digitally signed by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.07 12:49:15 +0530 One Lakh on conveyance and Rs. One Lakh towards attendance charges.
8.2 PE was then closed by the Ld. Counsel for petitioner on 16/02/2023.
9. No evidence was lead in defence by either of the Respondents No. 1 & 2.
9.1 Respondent No.3/ Insurance Company examined one Sh. Surjeet Singh, Assistant Employee No. 21224, posted in Legal Department, NLU, National Insurance Company Ltd. 2E/9, Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi as RW3/1 in the lead case bearing MACT No. 807/21. He proved the authority letter vide Ex. RW3/1, insurance policy vide Ex. RW3/2. He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for petitioner. In his cross-examination he deposed that in Ex.RW2/2 nowhere mentioned that the company is not liable to pay the compensation. He denied the suggestion that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to third party in the present matter.
EVIDENCE IN CASE NO. 808/21 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by Injured Kavita) :
MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 16/63 Digitally signed by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.07 12:49:25 +0530
10. Injured Kavita examined herself as PW-2, who deposed, through her affidavit Ex. PW1/X, that at the relevant date, time and place, she alongwith her sister Anita, brother in law namely Aminder and nephew namely Garvit and two other persons were going towards Baraut, UP from Pipal Chowk Kakaraula Village, Delhi by an EECO Van as passengers. She further deposed that the driver of the above said vehicle was driving the said vehicle with rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed and when the above said vehicle reached at Gandhi Vihar Red Light at the same time, the accident took place and she and all other co-passengers of the offending vehicle sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the offending EECO Van She also placed on record the following documents :-
"Ex. PW2/1(OSR) is the copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner;
Ex. PW2/2 are original treatment record and medical bills (Colly);
10.1 She was cross-examined by R-3/ Insurance Company. In her cross-examination she deposed that the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL-9CAV-4445 was driving negligently and not following any traffic rules. She MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 17/63 Digitally signed by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.07 12:49:31 +0530 further denied the suggestion that the vehicle bearing registration no. DL-9CAV-4445 driven by Pranjul/ driver in very normal speed and following traffic rules. She further denied the suggestion that the truck bearing registration no. HR-63-C8453 was negligently driving the vehicle resulting the accident took place. She further denied the suggestion that the truck was stationed in the middle of road. She denied the suggestion that it was only negligence of vehicle bearing registration no. HR-63- C8453.
10.2 PE was then closed by Ld. Counsel for petitioner on 16/02/2023.
11. No evidence was lead in defence by either of the Respondents No. 1 & 2.
11.1 Respondent No.3/ Insurance Company examined one Sh. Surjeet Singh, Assistant Employee No. 21224, posted in Legal Department, NLU, National Insurance Company Ltd. 2E/9, Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi as RW3/1. in the lead case bearing MACT No. 807/21.
FINDINGS
12. Oral submissions were advanced by Ld. Counsel for MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 18/63 Digitally signedPANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.10.07 12:49:38 +0530 the parties.
13. I have perused the record and my issue wise findings are as under:-
ISSUE NO. 1 (IN ALL FOURT MATTERS) Whether the petitioners Aminder, Garvit, Prabhat, Kavita & Anita suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 19.07.2021 at about 05.57 AM involving vehicle bearing registration No. DL-9C- AV-4445 driven the Respondent No. 1 by the Respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, owned by the Respondent No.2 and insured with Respondent No.3?OPP.
14. At the very outset, it may be noted that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts, as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the M.V. Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the prepositions of law laid down by the MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 19/63 Digitally signedPANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.10.07 12:49:44 +0530 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096(Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc.
15. In order to prove the present issue, the injured in the lead case Aminder has examined himself as PW-1 and other injured in the connected case Smt. Kavita has been examined as PW-2 separately in the lead case. Both the injured has clearly and categorically deposed that at the relevant date, time and place all the injured were travelling in EECO Van/ offending vehicle which was being driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. A bare perusal of cross examination of injured PW-1 and PW-2 by Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.3/ Insurance Company clearly reflects that they ( injured ) were able to respond to their queries in a satisfactory manner, consistent with the case of the petitioner/s. Injured has declined the suggestions imputing the occurrence of accident to the negligence driving of the driver of the EECO Van. In totality, it could be safely observed here that injured has withstood the test of cross examination as they have not betrayed any signs of MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 20/63 Digitally signed by PANKAJPANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.07 12:49:55 +0530 falsity or inconsistency and therefore, their testimonies is worth acting upon.
16. The very fact that R-1 has already been charge- sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279/337/338 & 184 MV Act IPC in the above criminal case/FIR in itself is a strong circumstance to support the above oral testimony of injured persons and the case of petitioners on these issues. The copies of FIR, Chargesheet, Site plan, Mechanical inspection reports of offending vehicle, MLC, medical records of injured persons, Seizure Memos and Arrest Memo of R-1 also corroborate the oral testimony of injured persons.
17. Besides the above, R-1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the deposition being made by injured regarding the above accident and its manner etc., but he has not done so. Therefore, an adverse inference on this aspect is also required to be drawn against the respondents in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
18. In view of the above, it could be safely assumed that at the relevant time the offending vehicle was being driven by MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 21/63Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.07 12:50:03 +0530 R-1 rashly and negligently in which injured persons were travelling at the relevant time.
19. This Tribunal now proceeds to assess the wrongful act, neglect or default of R-1, if any, in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. Admittedly, R-1 has not explained the circumstances under which his vehicle (i.e. the offending vehicle) why he was driving his vehicle rashly and negligently in which the injured persons were travelling at the relevant time. In the absence of any averment or evidence regarding any mechanical defect in the offending vehicle or any material depicting any negligent/sudden act or omission on the part of the injured persons, the only inference possible in the given facts and circumstances is that of neglect and default on the part of R-1 in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time.
20. In view of the medical records placed on the judicial files by the respective petitioner/s, no dispute is left regarding the nature of injuries sustained by the injured person in the above accident.
21. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal holds that the injured suffered injuries on their person on account of neglect and default of R-1 while driving the offending vehicle at MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 22/63 Digitally signed by PANKAJPANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.07 12:50:13 +0530 the relevant time. In all these issues are thus decided against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner/s in all the above four cases.
ISSUE NO. 2 ( IN ALL THE FOUR CASES)
22. As this Tribunal has already held that R1 was responsible for the injuries sustained by the injured person, therefore, the petitioners in all the cases are entitled to be compensated justly. Computation of the compensation shall be decided separately for both the sets of petitioners as well as injured in the following paragraphs :-
COMPENSATION IN CASE NO. 807/21 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by Injured Aminder) :
23. In terms of provisions contained in Section 168 of the MV Act the compensation which is to be awarded by this tribunal is required to be 'just'. In the injury cases a claimant is entitled to two different kinds of compensations i.e. pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary damages. The pecuniary damages or special damages are those damages which are awarded and designed to make good the losses which are capable of being calculated in terms of money and the object of awarding these damages is to indemnify the claimant for the expenses which he MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 23/63 Digitally signed by PANKAJPANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.07 12:50:33 +0530 had already incurred or is likely to incur in respect of the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The non-pecuniary or general damages are those damages which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. The pecuniary or special damages generally include the expenses incurred by the claimant towards his treatment, special diet, conveyance, cost of nursing/ attendant, loss of income/earning capacity etc. and the non- pecuniary damages generally include the compensation for the mental or physical shock, pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, marriage prospects and disfiguration etc. The above categories falling under both the heads of compensation are not exhaustive in nature but only illustrative. It is also necessary to state here that no amount of money or compensation can put the injured/claimant exactly in the same position or place where he was before the accident and an effort is to be made only to reasonably compensate him or to put him almost in the same place or position where he could have been if the alleged accident had not taken place and this compensation is to be assessed in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The object of compensating him is also not to reward him or to make him rich in an unjust manner. It is also well settled that the 'just' compensation to be awarded to the claimant has to be calculated objectively and it may involve some guess work in calculating the different amounts which the claimant may be entitled under the different heads of compensation. Reference in this regard can MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 24/63 Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.10.07 12:50:41 +0530 be made on some of important judgments on the subject like the judgment in the case of R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 755, Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2010) 10 SCC 254 and Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC
343.
24. In light of the above legal propositions, the amount of compensation which could be considered to be 'just' in the opinion of this tribunal shall be as under:-
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses
25. The Injured Aminder has placed on judicial file the medical treatment records as well as medical bills as Ex. PW1/2(colly).As per the said documents, Injured Aminder has incurred expenses to the tune of Rs. 12,281/.In the absence of any contest to the said documents placed on record by the Injured Aminder. Injured Aminder is held entitled to an amount of Rs.12,281/ under this head.
(ii) Pain and Suffering
26. As per medical documents, the injured Aminder has suffered grievous injuries and also sustained 80% permanent disability. As per disability certificate no. 1725 dated 15.03.2022 issued by Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital, Delhi, petitioner MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 25/63 Digitally signed by PANKAJPANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.07 12:50:50 +0530 is a case of ''AK AMPUTATION ( L)' and was found to have sustained 80% permanent physical impairment with respect to his left lower limb which is not likely to improve. The aforementioned certificate was issued in terms of the directions of this Tribunal vide order dated 13.12.2021. Accordingly, the aforementioned disability certificate could be read in evidence in terms of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Union of India in Writ Petition (s) (Civil ) No (s). 534/2020 date of order 16/11/2021. It is not possible to quantify the compensation admissible to petitioner for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which he actually suffered because of the above injuries, but as stated above, an effort has to be made to compensate him for the same in a just and reasonable manner. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the injuries suffered by petitioner and duration of the treatment taken by him etc., an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is being awarded to him towards pain and sufferings during the said period of his treatment and immobility. Thus, he is awarded a total amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- under this head.
(iii) Loss of actual earnings
27. In his affidavit Ex. PW1/A, the Injured Aminder stated that he was doing a private job and was earning Rs.
MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 26/63 Digitally signedPANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.10.07 12:50:58 +0530 35,000/- per month. In this regard, injured Aminder has placed on record the salary slips Ex. PW1/11 (Colly). As per which, his monthly salary for the month of June, 2021 is Rs. 36,192/-. Accordingly, the income of the injured Aminder for the purpose of computation of compensation is considered as Rs. 36,192/- per month. As per medical record Ex. PW1/2(colly), the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries .Considering the above, age of the injured Aminder and the severity of injuries as mentioned in the disability certificate, it would not be inappropriate to assume that the injured Aminder would not have been unable to resume his work for a period of 06 months at least. As such, the injured Aminder is entitled to be granted a sum of Rs.2,17,152/ (Rs.36,192/ X 6) towards loss of actual earnings. This amount is granted to the injured Aminder under this head.
(iv) Loss of future earnings due to disability
28. In his affidavit Ex. PW1/A, the injured Aminder stated that he has suffered a loss of earnings on account of physical disability suffered in the said accident. As per the medical record Ex. PW1/2(colly), the injured Aminder has suffered grievous injuries and the disability certainly the injured has suffered 80% permanent physical disability with respect to his left lower limb. In this background, it has been argued on MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 27/63 Digitally signed by PANKAJPANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.07 12:51:06 +0530 behalf of the injured Aminder that the injured Aminder is unable to work efficiently and which is affecting his livelihood. Since, the injured Aminder was working at the relevant time and as per his evidence his job was of Sr. Accounts Executive and he has qualified the Bachelor of Science in Hospitality and Catering Management. Therefore, the amputation of left leg and disability to the extent of 80% which is not likely to improve in future would certainly impact his future prospects as he has been rendered unemployed and unsuitable for the similar job. Accordingly, it has been prayed that the injured Aminder may be treated as a case of 100% physical disability and the loss of earning capacity may also be treated as 100%. R3/ Insurance company contests this prayer by stating that the physical disability of petitioner has not affected the working capacity of the injured Aminder. Having considered the rival submissions, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that being in hospitality and management background, the disability suffered in left lower limb would certainly affect his working capacity and therefore in the facts and circumstances, this Tribunal holds that the working capacity of the injured Aminder has undergone a reduction of 100% at least. The functional disability of injured Aminder is hereby assessed @ 100%.
29. Admittedly, the injured Aminder's monthly income has been assessed as Rs. 36,192/. As far as the age of injured MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 28/63 Digitally signed byPANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.10.07 12:51:12 +0530 at the time of accident is concerned, the injured Aminder has placed on record a copy of his Aadhar Card Ex. PW1/1, as per said document the date of birth of injured Aminder is 06.03.1988. As per the said document, the age of injured Aminder at the time of accident (i.e.19.07.2021) would be 33 years. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.,(2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment dated 31.10.2017 given in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, the multiplier of '16' is held applicable for calculating the loss of future earnings of injured Aminder arising out of his above disability. The injured Aminder is also entitled to future prospects as per the observations made by a Three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Erudhaya Priya Vs. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., MANU/SC/0545/2020 [please see para 7
(b)]. As per National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., the injured Aminder is entitled to grant of 50% of his established income towards loss of future prospects. Thus, the loss of future earnings of injured Aminder due to his above injury and permanent disability comes to Rs.1,04,23,296/ MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 29/63 PANKAJ Digitally signed by
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2023.10.07
12:51:20 +0530
(Rs.36,192/ X 150/100 X X 12 X 16) and the same is being awarded to him under this head.
(v) Conveyance, Attendant Charges and Special Diet
30. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the injured Aminder the extent of permanent physical disability and the extended period of medical treatment as well as age of injured Aminder, the injured Aminder is granted a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each under these heads.
(vi) Loss of amenities of life and disfigurement
31. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the injured Aminder the extent of permanent physical disability, the extended period of medical treatment and the age of injured Aminder the injured Aminder is granted a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each under these heads.
COMPENSATION IN CASE NO. 805/21 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by Injured Garvit) :
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses
32. The father of Injured Garvit has placed on judicial file the medical treatment records as well as medical bills as Ex. PW1/9(colly). As per the said documents, Injured Garvit has MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 30/63 Digitally signed by PANKAJPANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.07 12:51:29 +0530 incurred expenses to the tune of Rs.1,482/. In the absence of any contest to the said documents placed on record by the Injured Garvit, injured Garvit is held entitled to an amount of Rs. 1,482/ under this head.
(ii) Pain and Suffering
33. As per medical records Ex. PW1/9(colly), the Injured Garvit sustained simple injuries. It is not possible to quantify the compensation admissible to Injured Garvit for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which he actually suffered because of the above injuries, but as stated above, an effort has to be made to compensate him for the same in a just and reasonable manner. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the injuries suffered by Injured Garvit and duration of the treatment taken by him etc., an amount of Rs. 25,000/ is being awarded to him towards pain and sufferings during the said period of his treatment and immobility. Thus, he is awarded a total amount of Rs. 25,000/ under this head.
(iii Conveyance, Special Diet, Attendant Charges & Amenities of life
34. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the injured Garvit and the extended period of medical treatment, the MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 31/63 Digitally signed by PANKAJPANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.07 12:51:42 +0530 injured Garvit is granted a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each under these heads.
COMPENSATION IN CASE NO. 805/21 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by Injured Kavita) :
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses
35. The father of Injured Kavita has placed on judicial file the medical treatment records as well as medical bills as Ex. PW2/2(colly). As per the said documents, Injured Kavita has incurred expenses to the tune of Rs.4,609/. In the absence of any contest to the said documents placed on record by the Injured Kavita, injured Kavita is held entitled to an amount of Rs. 4,609/ under this head.
(ii) Pain and Suffering
36. As per medical records Ex. PW2/2(colly), the Injured Kavita sustained simple injuries. It is not possible to quantify the compensation admissible to Injured Kavita for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which he actually suffered because of the above injuries, but as stated above, an effort has to be made to compensate him for the same in a just and reasonable manner. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 32/63 Digitally signed by PANKAJPANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.07 12:52:15 +0530 injuries suffered by Injured Kavita and duration of the treatment taken by him etc., an amount of Rs. 25,000/ is being awarded to him towards pain and sufferings during the said period of his treatment and immobility. Thus, he is awarded a total amount of Rs. 25,000/ under this head.
(iii) Conveyance, Special Diet, Attendant Charges & Loss of Amenities of life
37. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the injured Kavita and the extended period of medical treatment, the injured Kavita is granted a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each under these heads.
COMPENSATION IN CASE NO. 809/21 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by Injured Anita) :
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses
38. The husband of Injured Anita has placed on judicial file the medical treatment records as well as medical bills as Ex. PW1/7(colly). As per the said documents, Injured t has incurred expenses to the tune of Rs.1,565/. In the absence of any contest to the said documents placed on record by the Injured Anita, MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 33/63 Digitally signed by PANKAJPANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2023.10.07 12:52:21 +0530 injured Anita Kumar is held entitled to an amount of Rs. 1,565/ under this head.
(ii) Pain and Suffering
39. As per medical records Ex. PW1/7(colly), the Injured Anita sustained simple injuries. It is not possible to quantify the compensation admissible to Injured Anita for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which he actually suffered because of the above injuries, but as stated above, an effort has to be made to compensate him for the same in a just and reasonable manner. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the injuries suffered by Injured Anita and duration of the treatment taken by him etc., an amount of Rs. 25,000/ is being awarded to him towards pain and sufferings during the said period of his treatment and immobility. Thus, he is awarded a total amount of Rs. 25,000/ under this head.
(iii) Conveyance, Special Diet, Attendant Charges & Amenities of life
40. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the injured Anita Kumari and the extended period of medical treatment, the injured Anita Kumari is granted a sum of Rs. MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 34/63Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.07 12:52:27 +0530 25,000/- each under these heads.
ISSUE NO.3 / RELIEF
41. The Injured Aminder (IN CASE NO. 807/21 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by Injured Aminder) is thus awarded a sum of Rs. 1,10,02,729/- (Rupees One Crore Ten Lakhs Two Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty Nine Only) (Rs. 12,281/- + Rs. 1,00,000/- + Rs.2,17,152/- + Rs.1,04,23,296/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs. 50,000/- + Rs. 50,000/- + Rs. 50,000/- + Rs. 50,000/) along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 12.11.2021. Since no interim compensation has been awarded, therefore no deduction is applicable.
41.1 The Injured Garvit (IN CASE NO. 805/21 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by Injured Garvit) is thus awarded a sum of Rs. 1,26,482/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Six Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Two Only) (Rs.1,482/- + Rs. 25,000/- + Rs. 25,000/- + Rs. 25,000/-+ Rs. 25,000/- + Rs. 25,000/-) along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 12.11.2021. Since no interim compensation has been awarded, therefore no deduction is applicable.
42. The Injured Kanta (IN CASE NO. 808/21 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 35/63 Digitally signed by PANKAJPANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.07 12:52:35 +0530 sustained by Injured Kanta) is thus awarded a sum of Rs.1,29,609/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Nine Thousand Six Hundre Nine) (Rs.4,609- + Rs. 25,000/- + + Rs. 25,000/- + Rs. 25,000/- + Rs. 25,000/-+ Rs.25,000/-) along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 12.11.2021. Since no interim compensation has been awarded, therefore no deduction is applicable.
43. The Injured Anita Kumari (IN CASE NO. 809/21 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the in juries sustained by Injured Kanta) is thus awarded a sum of Rs.1,26,565/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Six Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Five Only) (Rs.1,565/- + Rs. 25,000/- + + Rs. 25,000/- + Rs. 25,000/- + Rs. 25,000/-+ Rs.25,000/-) along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 12.11.2021. Since no interim compensation has been awarded, therefore no deduction is applicable.
RELEASE IN CASE NO.805/21 (For Grant of Compensati on in respect of the injuries sustained by Injured Aminder):
44. On 17.08.2023, statement of Injured Aminder qua financial needs and requirements was recorded in terms of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 32 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. As per his MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 36/63Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.07 12:52:42 +0530 statement, his household expenditure is Rs. 60,000/- per month. Photocopy of the passbook of the bank account of the Injured Aminder maintained with SBI, Branch : Kakrola Mor, Delhi was also placed on record at that time. Photocopies of Aadhar Card and PAN Card were also placed on record by the Injured Aminder, apart from two coloured photographs of the Injured Aminder 44.1 Out of the awarded amount, Injured Aminder is awarded a sum of Rs.1,13,50,000/- (Rupees One Crore Thirteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) and the said amount is directed to be kept with State Bank of India, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in MACAD in the form of 227 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 227 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 35, 36 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in his savings/MACT Claims SB Account bearing No. 41787441434 IFSC Code - SBIN0016120 maintained with SBI, Branch - Kakrola Mor, Delhi (PAN No. DAEPA6591P).The remaining amount of Rs. 12,66,463/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Three Only) is also directed to be released into his above said account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the Injured Aminder.
MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 37/63 Digitally signed by PANKAJPANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.07 12:52:56 +0530 RELEASE IN CASE NO.805/21 (For Grant of Compensati on in respect of the injuries sustained by Injured Garvit):
45. Petitioner Garvit did not bother to appear before this Tribunal for recording his statement regarding financial needs and requirements.
45.1 The petitioner Garvit is awarded a sum of Rs.
1,45,032/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Five Thousand Thirty Two) and same be released in his savings/MACT Claims SB Account as and when he furnishes the details of his bank account which is near the place of his residence to the Bank Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi under intimation to the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal which can be withdrawn and utilized by the petitioner Garvit.
RELEASE IN CASE NO. 808/21 (For Grant of Compensat ion in respect of the injuries sustained by Injured Kavita):
46. On 17.08.2023, statement of Injured Kavita qua financial needs and requirements was recorded in terms of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 32 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. As per his statement, her household expenditure is Rs. 25,000/- per month.
MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 38/63 Digitally signed by PANKAJPANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.07 12:53:03 +0530 Photocopy of the passbook of the bank account of the Injured Kavita maintained with SBI, Branch : Kakrola Mor, Delhi was also placed on record at that time. Photocopies of Aadhar Card and PAN Card were also placed on record by the Injured Kavita, apart from two coloured photographs of the Injured Kavita.
46.1 The petitioner Kavita is awarded a sum of Rs.
1,48,618 ( Rupees One Lakh Forty Eight Thousand Six Hundred Eighteen Only) and same be released in her savings/MACT Claims SB Account bearing No. 41718491487 IFSC Code - SBIN0016120 maintained with SBI, Branch - Kakrola Mor, Delhi (PAN No. IQXPK0930E) which can be withdrawn and utilized by the petitioner Kavita.
RELEASE IN CASE NO. 809/21 (For Grant of Compensat ion in respect of the injuries sustained by Injured Anita Kumari):
47. On 17.08.2023, statement of Injured Anita Kumari qua financial needs and requirements was recorded in terms of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 32 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. As per his statement, her household expenditure is Rs. 25,000/- per month.
Photocopy of the passbook of the bank account of the Injured Kavita maintained with SBI, Branch : Kakrola Mor, Delhi was MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 39/63 Digitally signedby PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.07 12:53:20 +0530 also placed on record at that time. Photocopies of Aadhar Card and PAN Card were also placed on record by the Injured Kavita, apart from two coloured photographs of the Injured Kavita.
47.1 The petitioner Anita Kumari is awarded a sum of Rs.1,45,128/-(Rupees One Lakh Forty Five Thousand One Hundred Twenty Eight Only) in his savings/MACT Claims SB Account bearing No. 41755524736 IFSC Code -
SBIN0016120 maintained with SBI, Branch - Kakrola Mor, Delhi (PAN No. HRYPK2556K) which can be withdrawn and utilized by the petitioner Anita Kumari.
LIABILITY
48. On the point of liability, Ld.Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company seeks exoneration on the ground that the vehicle bearing registration no. DL-9C-AV-4445 was registered under the private category of private use vehicle whereas same is used for the purpose of commercial passenger vehicle. However, there is no evidence on record which can corroborate the said fact. The testimony of Sh. Surjeet Singh (RW3) is not sufficient to substantiate the same. Also, there is no independent evidence which can corroborate the same. Therefore, the plea of R-3/ Insurance Company seeking exoneration is hereby declined.
49. Accordingly, R-3/ Insurance Company is directed to MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 40/63 Digitally signedPANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.10.07 12:53:33 +0530 deposit the above award amount within 30 days from the date of this Award by way of NEFT or RTGS mode in the account of this Tribunal maintained with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (account holder's name-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 02 Central, A/C No. 40743576901, IFSC Code SBIN0000726) under intimation to the petitioners and this Tribunal in terms of the format for remittance of compensation as provided in Divisional Manager Vs. Rajesh, 2016 SCC Online Mad. 1913 (and reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the orders dated 16.03.2021 and 16.11.2021 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors) along with interest @ 8% per annum, failing which it will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
50. A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate 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)]. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 41/63 Digitally signed by PANKAJPANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.07 12:53:41 +0530 Rule 150A).
51. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the 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. on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
52. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records. File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 06.11.2023.
Digitally signedAnnounced in the open court PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA on this 06.10.2023 SHARMA Date:
2023.10.07 12:53:47 +0530 (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA) PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL) DELHI MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 42/63
Digitally
signed by
PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2023.10.07
12:53:52
+0530
FORM - XVI, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE OF AMINDER
1. Date of accident : 19.07.2021
2. Name of the injured : Sh. Aminder
3. Age of the injured : 33 Years
4. Occupation of the injured : Job
5. Income of the injured : Assessed on the basis of salary slip.
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken : Different Hospitals
8. Period of Hospitalization : NIL
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details : Yes MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 43/63 Digitally signed by PANKAJPANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.07 12:54:05 +0530
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs.12,281/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 50,000/- each
(iii) Expenditure on special diet
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant
(v) Cost of artificial limb NIL
(vi) Loss of earning capacity NIL
(vii) Loss of Income Rs. 2,17,152/ (Rs. 36,192/ X 6) MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 44/63 Digitally signed by PANKAJPANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2023.10.07 12:54:12 +0530
(viii) Any other loss which may NIL require any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecunicary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental NIL and physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 1,00,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 50,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration Rs.50,000/-
(v) Loss of marriage prospects NIL
(vi) Discomfort, Inconvenience NIL and Loss of earnings to the Parents during the period of hospitalization
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 45/63
PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.10.07 12:54:20 +0530 (I) Percentage of disability 80% w.r.t. his right lower limb.
assessed and nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N.A expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of 100% earning capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - Rs.1,04,23,296/ (Income x% Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.1,10,02,729 /-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 8% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the Rs.16,13,734-(rounded off) date of award
17. Total amount including Rs.1,26,16,463/-
interest MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 46/63 Digitally signed by PANKAJPANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.07 12:54:40 +0530
18. Award amount released Rs. 12,66,463/
19. Award amount kept in As per award FDRs
20. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award the award amount to the petitioners(s).
21. Next date for compliance 06/11/2023 of the award.
MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 47/63PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.10.07 12:54:49 +0530 FORM - XVI, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE OF KANTA DEVI
1. Date of accident : 19.07.2021
2. Name of the injured : Garvit
3. Age of the injured : 1½ Years
4. Occupation of the injured : NIL
5. Income of the injured : NIL
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken : Government Hospital
8. Period of Hospitalization : NIL
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details : NIL
10. Computation of Compensation MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 48/63Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.07 12:55:03 +0530 S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs.1,482/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance
Rs.25,00/- each
(iii) Expenditure on special diet
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant
(v) Cost of artificial limb NIL
(vi) Loss of earning capacity NIL
(vii) Loss of Income NIL
(viii) Any other loss which may NIL
require any special
treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his
life
MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 49/63 Digitally signedPANKAJ SHARMA by PANKAJ SHARMA Date: 2023.10.07 12:55:09 +0530
12. Non-Pecunicary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental NIL and physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 25,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.25,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration NIL
(v) Loss of marriage prospects NIL
(vi) Discomfort, Inconvenience NIL
and Loss of earnings to the
Parents during the period of
hospitalization
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(I) Percentage of disability N.A. assessed and nature of disability as permanent or temporary MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 50/63 Digitally signedPANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.10.07 12:55:24 +0530
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N.A expectation of life span on account of disability N.A.
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - N.A. (Income x% Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.1,26,482/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 8% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the Rs.18,550/-(rounded off) date of award
17. Total amount including Rs.1,45,032/-
interest MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 51/63 Digitally signed by PANKAJPANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.07 12:55:32 +0530
18. Award amount released Entire
19. Award amount kept in NIL FDRs
20. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award the award amount to the petitioners(s).
21. Next date for compliance 06/11/2023 of the award.
MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 52/63 Digitally signedPANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.10.07 12:55:39 +0530 FORM - XVI, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE OF KAVITA
1. Date of accident : 19.02.2021
2. Name of the injured : Kavita
3. Age of the injured : 31 Years
4. Occupation of the injured : NIL
5. Income of the injured : NIL
6. Nature of injury : Simple
7. Medical treatment taken : Government Hospital
8. Period of Hospitalization : NIL
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details : NIL MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 53/63 Digitally signedPANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.10.07 12:55:46 +0530
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs.4,609/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 25,000/- each
(iii) Expenditure on special diet
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant
(v) Cost of artificial limb NIL
(vi) Loss of earning capacity NIL
(vii) Loss of Income NIL MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 54/63 Digitally signed by PANKAJPANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.07 12:55:51 +0530
(viii) Any other loss which may NIL require any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecunicary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental NIL and physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.25,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration NIL
(v) Loss of marriage prospects NIL
(vi) Discomfort, Inconvenience NIL
and Loss of earnings to the
Parents during the period of
hospitalization
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 55/63 Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.10.07 12:55:59 +0530 (I) Percentage of disability NIL assessed and nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N.A expectation of life span on account of disability N.A.
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - N.A. (Income x% Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 1,29,609/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 8% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the Rs.19,609/-(rounded off) date of award
17. Total amount including Rs.1,48,618/-
interest MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 56/63 Digitally signed by PANKAJPANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.07 12:56:05 +0530
18. Award amount released Entire
19. Award amount kept in NIL FDRs
20. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award the award amount to the petitioners(s).
21. Next date for compliance 06/11/2023 of the award.
MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 57/63 Digitally signed by PANKAJPANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.07 12:56:11 +0530 FORM - XVI, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE OF ANITA KUMARI
1. Date of accident : 19.02.2021
2. Name of the injured : Anita Kumari
3. Age of the injured : 28 Years
4. Occupation of the injured : NIL
5. Income of the injured : NIL
6. Nature of injury : Simple
7. Medical treatment taken : Government Hospital
8. Period of Hospitalization : NIL
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details : NIL MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 58/63 Digitally signed by PANKAJPANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.07 12:56:19 +0530
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs.1,565/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 25,000/- each
(iii) Expenditure on special diet
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant
(v) Cost of artificial limb NIL
(vi) Loss of earning capacity NIL
(vii) Loss of Income NIL MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 59/63 Digitally signed by PANKAJPANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.07 12:56:26 +0530
(viii) Any other loss which may NIL require any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecunicary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental NIL and physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 25,000/
(iv) Disfiguration NIL
(v) Loss of marriage prospects NIL
(vi) Discomfort, Inconvenience NIL
and Loss of earnings to the
Parents during the period of
hospitalization
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 60/63
PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.10.07 12:56:31 +0530 (I) Percentage of disability NIL assessed and nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N.A expectation of life span on account of disability N.A.
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - N.A. (Income x% Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 1,26,565/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 8% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the Rs.18,563/-(rounded off) date of award
17. Total amount including Rs.1,45,128/-
interest MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 61/63 Digitally signed by PANKAJPANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2023.10.07 12:56:53 +0530
18. Award amount released Entire
19. Award amount kept in FDRs
20. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award the award amount to the petitioners(s).
21. Next date for compliance 06/11/2023 of the award.
MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 62/63 Digitally signed by PANKAJPANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.07 12:57:03 +0530 CONCLUSION
1. As per award dated 06.10.2023.
2. A separate file was ordered to be prepared by the Nazir with directions to put up the same on 06.11.2023.Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.10.07 12:57:10 +0530 (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA) PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL) DELHI/06/11/2023 MACT No. 807/21 Aminder Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 805/21 Garvit Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. MACT No. 808/21 Kavita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors.
MACT No. 809/21 Anita Vs. Pranjul Kumar & Ors. Page No. 63/63Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.10.07 12:57:16 +0530