Delhi District Court
Vikas vs Gurnam Singh And Ors on 22 September, 2023
IN THE COURT OF HARVINDER SINGH, PRESIDING
OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-01,
(WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
AWARD/JUDGMENT
MACT Case No.229/2020
CNR No.-DLWT01-004469-2020
Vikas, aged about 25 years
S/o Sh. Ugrasen,
R/o Kh. No. 38, Gali no. 8,
Gautam Colony, Narela,
Delhi-110040
Also at : Purkhas Dhiran (159)
Purkhas, Sonipat, Ganaur, Haryana-131102
...............petitioner
Versus
1. Gurnam Singh S/o Sh. Gurdit Singh
R/o V.P.O. Daulatpur,
Distt. Jalandhar, Punjab-144001
2. M/s Sant Motors
through its proprietor
Sh. Niranjan Singh Chadha
70, Transport Centre,
Punjabi Bagh, Distt. West Delhi-110035
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Division XI, Second Floor
6/90, Padam Singh Road, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005
Policy No. 360500311810000725
Valid from 04.07.2018 to 03.07.2019
........... Respondents
Date of Institution : 08.10.2020
Date of reserving order/judgment : 22.09.2023
Date of pronouncement : 22.09.2023
FORM-XVII
Vikas vs. Gurnam Singh & Ors.
MACT No.229/2020 No.1 of 33
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.09.23
10:57:26 +0530
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
1. Date of the accident 05.10.2018
2. Date of filing of Form-I - First Form-1 (FAR) was not Accident Report (FAR) filed in the present matter
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to Form-II was not filed in the victim(s) the present matter
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from Form-III was not filed in the Driver the present matter
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from Form-IV was not filed in the Owner the present matter
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- Form-V (IAR) was not Interim Accident Report (IAR) filed in the present matter
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form VIA & VIB were Form-VIB from the Victim(s) not filed in the present matter
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - DAR not filed in this Detailed Accident Report (DAR) matter
9. Whether there was any delay or N.A. deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Date not mentioned Designated Officer by the Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Officer Yes of the Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or No deficiency on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the Legal offer was not filed Vikas vs. Gurnam Singh & Ors.
MACT No.229/2020 No.2 of 33 Digitally signed HARVINDER by HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.09.23 10:59:55 +0530
claimant(s) to the offer of the in the present matter Insurance Company
14. Date of the award 22.09.2023
15. Whether the claimant(s) Yes was/were directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which 08.06.2023 claimant(s) was/were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Aadhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook
17. Date on which the claimant(s) 31.07.2023 produced the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address Kh. No. 38, Gali no. 8, of the claimant(s) Gautam Colony, Narela, Delhi-110040 Also at : Purkhas Dhiran (159) Purkhas, Sonipat, Ganaur, Haryana-131102
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings Yes bank account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) Yes was/were examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
FACTUAL POSITION & PLEADINGS Vikas vs. Gurnam Singh & Ors.
MACT No.229/2020 No.3 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.09.23 11:00:04 +0530
1. Vide this judgment/award, this Tribunal shall decide petition/application filed for compensation on account of the injuries sustained by injured Vikas in a road vehicular accident which took place on 05.10.2018 at about 11:30 PM at Out Bypass, Infront of Maruti Company Bhaloth Pulia, PS Sampla, District Rohtak, Haryana.
CASE OF THE PETITIONER SIDE 2.1 Succinctly, the case put forward vide petition/application is that on 05.10.2018, petitioner along with driver Ram Niwas was going to Sonipat, Haryana from Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar on Truck bearing registration No. HR69B5712. At about 11:30 PM, when they reached at Out Bypass, infront of Maruti Company Bhaloth Pulia, PS Sampla, District Rohtak, Haryana, then the driver of the truck Ram Niwas heard some mechanical sound coming and stopped it at left side of the road. Driver Ram Niwas directed petitioner/injured to check mechanical sound. Petitioner/injured got down from truck and was in process of finding out the mechanical sound/fault, in the meantime, one truck bearing registration No. HR38T8474 came from back at very high speed, in rash manner, in negligent manner and hit the petitioner with great force. Due to same, injured sustained grievous/dangerous injuries like Polytrauma with D3 burst with canal camparison, right D9, D8, C6, C7 with paraplegia, fracture right ribs and other multiple injuries. Injured was first shifted to Frank Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak, Haryana where he was given first aid, thereafter, he was shifted to Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Center (AIIMS), New Delhi where his MLC No. Vikas vs. Gurnam Singh & Ors.
MACT No.229/2020 No.4 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.09.23 11:00:11 +0530
500182863 dated 06.10.2018 was prepared. Injured remained admitted in said hospital from 06.10.2019 to 30.11.2018. During treatment his right upper limb disarticulation was done on 10.10.2018, debridement and stump closure was done on 13.10.2018 and stump debridement with STSG was done on 24.10.2018. He is still under medical treatment as out door patient. The incident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.1.
2.2 It is claimed that the injured/claimant was about 24 years of age at the time of accident. He was working as Helper/Conductor on Truck bearing registration No. HR69B5712 and was earning Rs.18,000/- per month beside other perks. The respondent no.01 being driver, respondent no.02 being owner and respondent no.03 being insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to petitioner. The injured/petitioner/claimant has sought compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only) from the respondents. MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS
3. Notice of the application/DAR was issued to the respondents, they appeared and respondent No.2 & 3 filed its written statement/reply to the present application/petition/DAR. RESPONSE OF THE RESPONDENT NO.01
4. Despite number of opportunities granted, no WS/reply/response was filed by the respondent no.1. RESPONSE OF THE RESPONDENT NO.02.
5. In gist, the response of respondent no.01 as discernible from his reply/written statement is that this Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition, Vikas vs. Gurnam Singh & Ors.
MACT No.229/2020 No.5 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2023.09.23
11:00:15 +0530
therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. The present petition is barred by res-judicata as earlier, similar petition was dismissed by the court of Dr. Kamini Lau, Ld. PO, MACT, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi vide orders dated 14.01.2020 on the issue of maintainability of the same at Delhi. Incident in question has not happened due to negligence of the respondent no.1 & 2. The offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent no.3 at the time of alleged incident. The claim of the petitioner needs to be dismissed. RESPONSE OF RESPONDENT NO.03
6. Succinctly, the response of respondent no.03 as discernible from its written statement/reply is that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present petition as incident took place at Haryana. Petitioner is permanent resident of Sonipat, Haryana and driver of the offending vehicle is resident of Punjab. The petitioner has earlier filed similar petition bearing MACT No. 406/2019, but same was dismissed by the court of Dr. Kamini Lau, Ld. PO, MACT, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi vide orders dated 14.01.2020 on the issue of maintainability of the same at Delhi. There was delay of one month in registration of FIR. Vehicle in question was duly insured with it vide policy No. 360500311810000725 for period 04.07.2018 to 03.07.2019 in the name of M/s Sant Motors covering the date of incident. Incident in question took place due to negligence of driver of the vehicle bearing No. HR69B5712 who parked his vehicle in the middle of the road without any parking signal. With these main contentions, respondent no.3 has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
MACT No.229/2020 No.6 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.09.23
11:00:22 +0530
ISSUES
7.1 After completion of pleadings, the Scholarly
Predecessor of this Tribunal framed following issues on 16.09.2021: -
(i) Whether the injured Vikas suffered injuries in the accident that took place on 05.10.2018 at about 11:30 pm due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration number HR38T8474(Truck) by the respondent no.01 Sh. Gurnam singh, being owned by respondent no.02 and being insured with respondent no.03? OPP (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if yes, at what amount and from whom? OPP (3) Relief.
7.2 Thereafter, matter was fixed for evidence of petitioner side.
PETITIONER SIDE EVIDENCE 8.1 The petitioner/claimant/injured examined his wife Mrs. Ishu as PW1 to establish his claim. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A reiterating and supporting the contents of their application/petition. She relied upon original Medical treatment record of petitioner Vikas Ex.PW1/1, Original Medical bills of petitioner Vikas Ex.PW1/2, Medical bills summary to the tune of Rs.11,22,925/- Mark X, photocopies of educational documents of injured/petitioner Ex.PW1/3, disability certificate of injured/petitioner Ex.PW1/4, photocopy of Aadhar Card of injured Vikas Ex.PW1/5, copy of her Aadhar Card Mark Y and photocopy of PAN Card of injured Ex.PW1/7 in her evidence. PW1 was cross-examined at length by Ld. Counsel for the respondent No.2 & 03 which is not Vikas vs. Gurnam Singh & Ors.
MACT No.229/2020 No.7 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.09.23
11:00:26 +0530
reproduced herein for the sake of brevity and was discharged. 8.2 The petitioner(s) also examined Dr. Naresh Chandra, Head of the Department of Orthopaedic, Indira Gandhi Hospital, Sector-9, Dwarka, New Delhi as PW-2 who deposed that on conclusion of medical examination, it was found that the patient Vikas is suffering from 100% permanent physical disability in relation to right upper limb and spine. He identified disability certificate of injured Ex. PW1/3 in his evidence. He deposed that the injured will not be able to perform his day to day activities in remaining part of his life. The patient/injured is completely tetra paraplegic with bladder and bowel involvement with right upper limb disarticulation through shoulder joint due to which he cannot sit and walk on his own. Injured needs alteast one attendant through out his life. He was examined, cross-examined by respondents and was discharged.
8.3 The petitioner also examined Sh. Ram Niwas, eye witness/driver of the truck in which the injured was working as helper/cleaner as PW-3. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW3/A reiterating similar facts as to manner of incident. He relied upon copy of FIR Ex.PW3/1, copy of his driving license Ex.PW3/2 and copy of his Aadhar Card Ex.PW3/3 in his evidence. He was examined, cross-examined by respondents and was discharged.
8.4 The petitioner further examined Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Reception Head from Oxygen Hospital, Bhiwani Stand, Rohtak, Haryana as PW-4 who has exhibited the bills and discharge summary as Ex.PW4/A(collectively) in his evidence. He deposed that the patient was admitted five times at their hospital as per Vikas vs. Gurnam Singh & Ors.
MACT No.229/2020 No.8 of 33 Digitally signed HARVINDER by HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.09.23 11:00:34 +0530
their records. The bills produced by him are of around Rs.2 Lakhs. He was examined, cross-examined by respondents and was discharged.
8.5 The petitioner/claimant/injured also examined himself as PW5 to establish his claim. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW5/A reiterating and supporting the contents of his application/petition. He relied upon documents which have already been exhibited as Ex.PW1/ to Ex.PW1/6 in his evidence. PW5 was cross-examined at length by Ld. Counsel for the respondent No.2 & 03 which is not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity and was discharged.
8.6 Thereafter, petitioner evidence was closed on 14.12.2022 and matter was fixed for respondent side evidence. RESPONDENT SIDE EVIDENCE
9. Despite number of opportunities, no evidence was led by any of the respondents and opportunity to lead same was finally closed vide orders dated 31.07.2023. FINAL ARGUMENTS/SUBMISSIONS/CONTENTIONS 10.1 Submissions/contentions of the petitioner side are that the petitioner side has positively proved that the incident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.01. The injured was about 24 years of age at the time of accident, he was working as Helper/Conductor on Truck bearing registration No. HR69B5712, was earning Rs.18,000/- per month and has suffered 100% permanent disability. Award may be passed by this Tribunal as per entitlement/claim of applicant/injured.
10.2 Submissions/contentions of the respondent no.02 are Vikas vs. Gurnam Singh & Ors.
MACT No.229/2020 No.9 of 33 Digitally signed HARVINDER by HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.09.23 11:00:39 +0530
that incident happened due to negligence of driver of the truck bearing No. HR69B5712. This tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain this petition as incident took place at Sampla District Rohtak, Haryana and the injured is permanent resident of Sonipat, Ganaur, Haryana. The petition of the petitioner side be dismissed.
10.3 In gist, submissions/contentions of the respondent no.03 are that the petitioner/applicant has failed to prove that incident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.01. The petitioner has earlier filed similar petition bearing MACT No. 406/2019 and same was dismissed by the court of Dr. Kamini Lau, Ld. PO, MACT, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi vide orders dated 14.01.2020 on the issue of maintainability of the same at Delhi. There is delay of one month in registration of FIR. Vehicle in question was duly insured with it vide policy No. 360500311810000725 valid for period 04.07.2018 to 03.07.2019 in the name of M/s Sant Motors covering the date of incident. Incident in question took place due to negligence of driver of the vehicle bearing No. HR69B5712 who parked his vehicle in the middle of the road without any parking signal. With these main submissions/contentions, the respondent no.03 has prayed for dismissal of the petition. ISSUE AS TO MAINTAINABILITY/ JURISDICTION:-
11. Though, no issue was framed as to maintainability of the present petition before the present Tribunal at the time of framing of issues, however, the respondents have raised the said issue vide their written statements/replies and has agitated it during evidence. It has also been brought to the notice of the Vikas vs. Gurnam Singh & Ors.
MACT No.229/2020 No.10 of 33 Digitally signed HARVINDER by HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.09.23 11:00:46 +0530
present Tribunal by the respondents that similar petition earlier filed by the petitioner bearing MACT No. 406/2019 was rejected/returned by the Court of Dr. Kamini Lau, Ld. PO, MACT, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi vide orders dated 14.01.2020 holding that the same is not maintainable at Delhi. It was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that during final arguments that the petitioner preferred this petition before this Tribunal as the owner of the offending vehicle M/s Sant Motors have its address at Punjabi Bagh, Delhi which fall within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Copy of the insurance policy of the offending vehicle in question mentions the address of M/s Sant Motors/owner of the vehicle in question as "70, Transport Centre, Punjabi Bagh Dist. West Delhi, Delhi, City;West Delhi-District Others, District West, Delhi, State Delhi, Pin:-110026". Same falls within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. So, this Tribunal certainly has jurisdiction in the present matter. Hence, contentions of respondents qua territorial jurisdiction are rejected.
ANALYSIS/FINDINGS ON ISSUES 12.1 Issue No.(1) : Whether the injured Vikas suffered injuries in the accident that took place on 05.10.2018 at about 11:30 pm due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration number HR38T8474(Truck) by the respondent no.01 Sh. Gurnam singh, being owned by respondent no.02 and being insured with respondent no.03? OPP 12.2 Before adverting to the facts of the present petition for deciding the above issue, at the very outset, it would be apposite to note here that the procedure followed by an accident Vikas vs. Gurnam Singh & Ors.
MACT No.229/2020 No.11 of 33 Digitally signed HARVINDER by HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.09.23 11:00:51 +0530
claim tribunal is similar to what is followed by a civil court. In civil matters the facts are required to be established by way of preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubt as is required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is not as heavy as it is in a criminal case and in a claim petition under The Motor Vehicles Act, this burden is even lesser than a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the prepositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of "Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors." reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgments in the case of "Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and Ors." 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and "Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.", 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc. 12.3 Now keeping in mind the aforesaid legal principle/preposition for decision of the present issue, this Tribunal has gone through the testimony of the witnesses and entire material available on record. This Tribunal has also given thoughtful consideration to arguments addressed by Ld. Counsels for the parties.
12.4 The petitioner/applicant/injured has specifically deposed in his examination-in-chief that he was hit by the offending Truck bearing registration No. HR38T8474 from behind. He has also specifically deposed that offending vehicle was driven by its driver in high speed, in rash manner and in negligent manner at the time of accident. He promptly denied the suggestion in his cross-examination that respondent no.1 was Vikas vs. Gurnam Singh & Ors.
MACT No.229/2020 No.12 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.09.23 11:00:57 +0530
driving the vehicle bearing No. HR38T8474 in a reasonable manner following all rules at the time of incident. He also denied the suggestion that incident took place due to his negligence. So, nothing supporting the case of the respondents on the aspect of rash and negligent driving came in his cross-examination. 12.5 The respondent no.01/driver was the best witness who could have rebutted the case of rashness and negligence of driving of the offending vehicle put forward by petitioner/claimant side. But respondent no.01/driver has chosen not to come in witness box to disprove the case of the petitioner side on said aspect. In the given circumstances, adverse inference also needs to be drawn against respondents. Reliance can be placed upon the decision Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh" 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310 upon said issue/aspect.
12.6 In totality of circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the claimant side has been able to bring on record such facts which proves almost at the scales of preponderance of probabilities that the incident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration number HR38T8474 by its driver/respondent no.01 on the date and time of the incident. Accordingly, issue no.01 is decided in favour of the petitioner/claimant/applicant and against the respondents.
Issue No. (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if yes, of what amount and from whom? OPP.
13.1 The petitioner is certainly entitled for compensation in view of decision of above issue. Before Vikas vs. Gurnam Singh & Ors.
MACT No.229/2020 No.13 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.09.23
11:01:03 +0530
proceeding further to decide the present issue, it would be apposite to encapsulate the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its guiding lamp post judgment for ascertaining just compensation in road vehicular injury cases. 13.2 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its division bench decision in matter of "Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors." (2011) 1 SCC 343 has held : -
"General principles relating to compensation in injury cases
4. The provision of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The Court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467).
5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising :
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).MACT No.229/2020 No.14 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.09.23
11:01:15 +0530
(vi) Loss of expectation of life
(shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads
(ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. Assessment of pecuniary damages under item (i) and under item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses - item (iii) -- depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages - items (iv), (v) and (vi) -- involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decision of this Court and High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability - item (ii)(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this case. Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability.
6. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human-being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (`Disabilities Act' for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation.
7. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the Vikas vs. Gurnam Singh & Ors.
MACT No.229/2020 No.15 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.09.23
11:01:20 +0530
injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body, cannot obviously exceed 100%.
8. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terns of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation (see for example, the decisions of this court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567).
9. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence: (i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary; (ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement, (iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the Vikas vs. Gurnam Singh & Ors.
MACT No.229/2020 No.16 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.09.23
11:01:26 +0530
permanent disability suffered by the person. If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity.
10. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of `loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may."
MACT No.229/2020 No.17 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.09.23
11:01:30 +0530
13.3 In view of the above law laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India, in routine injury cases, award needs to be passed only under heads of medical expenses, loss of earning during treatment period and damages for pain, suffering and trauma. In cases of serious injuries, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the claim/evidence of the claimant, award additionally needs to be passed under the heads of loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability suffered, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (including loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. The assessment of future medical expenses would depend upon specific medical evidence/advise for further treatment and costs thereof. The determination of damages on account of pain and suffering, loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life would depend upon the age of victim, nature of injury(ies)/deprivation/disability suffered by victim and the effect thereof on life of claimant. The process would involve determination/assessment of lump-sum amounts under those heads. In case of assessment of loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, the Tribunal needs to first ascertain whether the disability noted/assessed by the medical board is temporary or permanent in nature. If the disability is permanent in nature, then whether it is a total permanent disablement or partial permanent disablement. If the disablement has been referred/expressed in percentage terms, in reference to any specific limb then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the function of entire body. Once, the permanent disability is ascertained, then the Tribunal needs to determine whether such Vikas vs. Gurnam Singh & Ors.
MACT No.229/2020 No.18 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.09.23 11:01:33 +0530
permanent disability has affected or will affect the earning capacity of the claimant. To ascertain same, the Tribunal needs to ascertain the avocation, profession and nature of work of the claimant before the incident. The Tribunal also needs to ascertain his age and then needs to ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of permanent disability and what he could not do as result of same. The Tribunal then also needs to ascertain whether the claimant is totality disabled from earning any kind of livelihood or whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on activities and functions which he was carrying on earlier or whether the claimant is prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood despite permanent disability suffered. After ascertaining the functional disability vide above process, then Tribunal needs to workout the loss of earning capacity per month. The Tribunal is thereafter required to workout loss of earning capacity per annum. An appropriate multiplier needs to be ascertained as per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of "Sarla Verma Vs. DTC" 2009 ACJ 1298 SC according to age of the injured/victim. The total loss of earning capacity then needs to be worked out multiplying appropriate multiplier ascertained with ascertained annual loss of earning capacity. This is a case where permanent disability is claimed and compensation is also demanded qua future loss of earnings on account of permanent disability, hence, this Tribunal now proceeds further step by step to decide the compensation/award Vikas vs. Gurnam Singh & Ors.
MACT No.229/2020 No.19 of 33 Digitally signed HARVINDER by HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.09.23 11:01:48 +0530
under different heads applicable to the present matter in light of above preposition.
DETERMINATION OF INJURIES AND DURATION OF TREATMENT 13.4 It would be appropriate to first ascertain the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/claimant and duration of treatment as they need to be kept in mind while ascertaining the compensation under different heads applicable. The petitioner has filed medical record to prove his nature of injuries. As per discharge summary issued by JPN Apex Trauma Centre, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, the injured has suffered polytrauma, right RIB 2 point 3, 4 and single point 2, 5, 6 right mild haemo-pneumo thorax, ICD in Situ left mild haemothorax, B/L Scapula commitnuted D3 Burst with Posterior superior fragment within canal with severe canal compromise (7mm), D9 chance, D8 Inf Articular Process, C6 Spinous process, C7 Body left superior aticular process with paraplegia. He was admitted in hospital on 06.10.2018 and was discharged on 30.11.2018. He was also admitted in hospitals w.e.f. 27.12.2019 to 07.01.2020, 19.05.2020 to 22.05.2020, 15.07.2020 to 17.07.2020, 17.11.2020 to 18.11.2020, 02.01.2021 to 02.01.2021, 22.07.2021 to 24.07.2021, 15.10.2021 to 17.10.2021 and 06.04.2022 to 13.04.2022. He is still under treatment.
DETERMINATION OF AGE OF CLAIMANT/INJURED & MULTIPLIER 13.5 The age of the claimant/injured would also be an essential consideration for grant of just compensation under different heads applicable in the present matter, so claimant's age Vikas vs. Gurnam Singh & Ors.
MACT No.229/2020 No.20 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.09.23
11:01:55 +0530
also needs to be ascertained first. As per Secondary Examination certificate of injured Ex.PW1/3, the date of birth of injured is 12.09.1995 and the incident took place on 05.10.2018, so the injured/petitioner is taken to be 23 years of age at the time of incident/accident. Since, he falls in age bracket of 15 to 25 years, so, multiplier applicable to this case would be 18. DETERMINATION OF EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION 13.6 Photocopy of 10th class certificate of injured is available on record and same was never controverted by respondent side. So, the educational qualification of the injured is taken as Matriculate.
DETERMINATION OF MEDICAL EXPENSES 13.7 The claimant/injured has filed medical bills as Ex.PW1/2 and medical bill summary to the tune of Rs.11,22,925/- as Mark X. The amount of original bills submitted by petitioner are of around Rs.11,22,925/-. Petitioner side has also examined Sh. Dinesh Kumar/PW-4 who exhibited the bills and discharge summary collectively as Ex.PW4/A. The amount of those bills comes out to be Rs.1,31,962/-. Hence, injured/petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.12,54,887/- (Rs.11,22,925/- + Rs.1,31,962/-) on account of medical bills/expenses. Accordingly, petitioner is awarded Rs.12,54,887/- on account of medical expenses.
AWARD TOWARDS FUTURE TREATMENT 13.8 Petitioner has not claimed any amount required for future treatment. He has also not filed any document/medical evidence on record to show that he requires any future treatment, hence, he is not entitled for any amount under this head.
MACT No.229/2020 No.21 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.09.23
11:02:04 +0530
PAIN & SUFFERINGS
13.9 A particular amount cannot be fixed of pain and
sufferings applicable to all cases as it varies from case to case. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that since the petitioner has received number of serious injuries, therefore, petitioner must have suffered acute pain and sufferings owing to the said injuries. Considering the nature of injuries, duration of the treatment of the petitioner in the hospital and the disability(ies) suffered by the injured/petitioner as mentioned in the disability certificate, this Tribunal hereby grant compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
DETERMINATION OF INCOME OF INJURED/PETITIONER 13.10(i) The injured/petitioner/claimant has claimed that he
was working as Helper/Conductor on Truck bearing registration No.HR69B5712 and was earning Rs.18,000/- per month. But no documentary proof has been placed on record by the petitioner side to prove his earnings. Hence, he has failed to prove his income, so, the income of the injured needs to be assessed on the basis of chart available of minimum wages of a Matriculate person of State of Haryana as on date of incident. The minimum wages for a Matriculate person of State of Haryana as on date of accident i.e. 05.10.2018 were Rs.9417/- [Rs.9368.54 +48.59(DA)] (after rounding off Rs.9417.13/-per month). 13.10(ii) Accordingly, the monthly income of the injured needs to be considered as Rs.9417/- per month on the date of accident.
DETERMINATION OF LOSS OF INCOME DURING Vikas vs. Gurnam Singh & Ors.
MACT No.229/2020 No.22 of 33 Digitally signed HARVINDER by HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.09.23 11:02:10 +0530 TREATMENT PERIOD 13.11 Considering the nature of injuries and duration of
the treatment of the injured/petitioner, this tribunal is of the opinion that injured/petitioner must have not been able to work till date i.e. for around 59 months. Accordingly, this tribunal hereby grant compensation of sum of Rs.5,55,603/- (Rs.9417/- x
59) towards loss of income during treatment period. DETERMINATION OF LOSS OF FUTURE EARNINGS 13.12 This Tribunal has received the disability certificate of the petitioner from Guru Gobind Singh Government Hospital, Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi. In the disability certificate, it has been specifically mentioned that the petitioner has suffered 100% permanent disability in relation to his right upper limb and spine. ASSESSMENT OF FUNCTIONAL DISABILITY 13.13 The injured/petitioner has claimed that he was working as Helper/Conductor on truck. The age of victim has been ascertained as 23 years at the time of incident. The physical disability assessed by board is 100%. It is claimed that the same would result in total preventing/hampering the injured/claimant in carrying on the activity/work which he was carrying on earlier. In the opinion of this Tribunal, the same has to be considered having equivalent effect of functional disability in relation to claimed work of the petitioner/claimant or any other job/avocation/profession which could have been taken by the petitioner/claimant in future or in any day to day natural activity. Hence, the functional disability of petitioner needs to be considered as 100%.
DETERMINATION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS APPLICABLE Vikas vs. Gurnam Singh & Ors. MACT No.229/2020 No.23 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.09.23 11:02:16 +0530 13.14 The injured was aged less than 40 years at the time
of incident and had no permanent job, so the future prospects/benefits applicable to the present case would be 40%. ASSESSMENT/DETERMINATION OF ENHANCED MONTHLY INCOME 13.15 As has already been held, income of injured as Rs.9417/- would be applicable in this case and an addition of 40% needs to be made qua future prospects. Accordingly, the monthly income of the injured needs to be taken as Rs.13,184/- (after rounding off Rs.13,183.8/-) (Rs.9417/- + Rs.3766.8/- which is 40% of Rs.9417/-).
LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY/LOSS OF FUTURE EARNING 13.16 The total loss of earning capacity/loss of future earning would come out to be Rs.28,47,744/- (Rs.13,184/-x 12 x 18 x 100/100).
AWARD TOWARDS LOSS OF AMENITIES OF LIFE 13.17 Considering the age of the injured, the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner, the disability certificate of claimant/injured, the duration of treatment of claimant/injured and the fact that the permanent disability suffered by claimant/injured had made him bedridden for whole of his life, this Tribunal hereby grant compensation of Rs.60,000/- on account of loss of amenities of life. AWARD TOWARDS LOSS OF EXPECTATION OF LIFE 13.18 Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner, duration of his treatment and disability(ies) suffered, this Tribunal hereby grant compensation of Vikas vs. Gurnam Singh & Ors.
MACT No.229/2020 No.24 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.09.23 11:02:23 +0530
Rs.1,00,000/- on account of loss of expectation of life. AWARD QUA SPECIAL DIET 13.19 Though, there is no cogent evidence on record of money spent by the petitioner upon special diet, yet considering the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner and duration of treatment in the hospitals, this Tribunal is of the opinion that petitioner must have spent some money under this head. Hence, this Tribunal hereby grant compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards expenses incurred on special diet. AWARD TOWARDS ATTENDANT CHARGES 13.20(i) It was submitted that injured has suffered 100% physical disability in relation to right upper limb and spine in the present matter. He has become bedridden and will not able perform his natural activities without help. The injured is completely tetra paraplegic with bladder and bowel involvement with right upper limb disarticulation through shoulder joint due to which he cannot sit, walk on his own, therefore, he will certainly require one attendant for rest of his life. 13.20(ii) Hence, this Tribunal hereby grant Rs.18,44,856/- [Rs.8541/- (Minimum Wages of unskilled person of the State of Haryana as on 05.10.2018) x 12 x 18] as attendant charges for rest of his life. This Tribunal relies upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of "Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand & ors." 2020 ACJ 1042 for granting said attendant charges and as to their quantum.
AWARD QUA CONVEYANCE 13.21 Though there is no cogent evidence on record of money spent by the petitioner upon conveyance, yet considering Vikas vs. Gurnam Singh & Ors.
MACT No.229/2020 No.25 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2023.09.23
11:02:29 +0530
the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner, this Tribunal is of the opinion that injured/petitioner must have spent some money under this head. Hence, this Tribunal hereby grant compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards expenses incurred on conveyance.
13.22 IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THIS TRIBUNAL AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS TABULATED HEREIN BELOW : -
S.No. Heads of Compensation Amount
1. Reimbursement of medical Rs.12,54,887/-
expenses
2. Compensation on account of NIL
future treatment
3. Pain and Suffering Rs.2,50,000/-
4. Loss of income during Rs.5,55,603/-
treatment period/recovery
5. Loss of earning capacity/loss Rs.28,47,744/-
of future earning
6. Loss of amenities of life Rs.60,000/-
7. Loss of expectation of life Rs.1,00,000/-
8. Special diet Rs.50,000/-
9. Attendant charges Rs.18,44,856/-
10. Conveyance Rs.50,000/-
Total Rs.70,13,090/-
R E L I E F:-
14. This Tribunal hereby pass an award of
Rs.70,13,090/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs Thirteen Thousand and Ninety Only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 7% per annum including interim award, if any from the date of filing the DAR/claim petition i.e. 08.10.2020 till the date of the payment of the award amount, in favour of petitioner/claimant and against the respondents on account of their liability being joint and several.
MACT No.229/2020 No.26 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.09.23 11:02:35 +0530 APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY
15. As the offending vehicle was admittedly insured with the respondent no.03/Insurance company, respondent no.03/insurance company is hereby directed to deposit the award amount in favour of the petitioner(s) with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account No.40711767202, CIF No.90891362578, IFSC Code - SBIN0000726, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this award together with the interest as stated herein above under intimation to this Tribunal and under intimation to the petitioner(s)/claimant(s)/applicant(s). In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP) 16.1 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No.842/2003 titled as "Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors." has formulated MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme) vide its order dated 07.12.2018 which was made effective from 01.01.2019. The State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. 16.2. Keeping in mind the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the respondent no.03/insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount of Vikas vs. Gurnam Singh & Ors.
MACT No.229/2020 No.27 of 33 Digitally signed HARVINDER by HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.09.23 11:02:42 +0530
Rs.70,13,090/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs Thirteen Thousand and Ninety Only) as stated herein above with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in the MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account No.40711767202 CIF No.90891362578, IFSC Code -SBIN0000726, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in favour the petitioner(s)/applicant(s)/ claimant(s) as stated herein above.
16.3 Out of the award amount, Rs.20,13,090/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Thirteen Thousand and Ninety Only) shall be released to the petitioner/injured.
16.4 Manager, SBI Tis Hazari Delhi is directed to release Rs.20,13,090/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Thirteen Thousand and Ninety Only) in MACT account of injured/petitioner bearing MACT account No.42169019938 with SBI, Bawana Road Narela, Delhi, IFSC Code:
SBIN0006812.
16.5 The rest of the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- and interest shall be kept in equal monthly FDR's of Rs.20,000/- each for the period of 250 months of principal amount and for further months dividing the interest by Rs.20,000/-. The remainder, if any, of said division shall be added in the last FDR. All FDRs shall be numbered from 1st to last and shall be released from 1 st to last in each consecutive month with interest accumulated in the abovesaid account of petitioner. Money shall be withdrawn through withdrawal slip only.
16.6. The following conditions shall be adhered to by SBI, Tis Hazari Delhi with respect to the fixed deposits:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit Vikas vs. Gurnam Singh & Ors.MACT No.229/2020 No.28 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.09.23
11:02:47 +0530
accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the MACT bank account of the claimant (s) near the place of their residence.
(d) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(e) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card (s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(f) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(g) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
16.7 In accordance with the orders dated 08.02.2019 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 in "Rajesh Tyagi and others Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors.", Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager has been appointed as Nodal Officer of State Bank of India having Phone No.022- 22741336/9414048606 and e mail ID [email protected]. In case of any assistance or non compliance, the aforesaid Nodal Officer may be contacted. A copy of this order be sent by e- mail to the aforesaid Nodal Officer of the aforesaid bank by the Vikas vs. Gurnam Singh & Ors.
MACT No.229/2020 No.29 of 33 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2023.09.23
11:02:51 +0530
Ahlmad of the Court immediately in accordance with the directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as given in the orders dated 07.12.2018. The Nodal Officer of the bank shall ensure the disbursement of the award amount within three weeks of the receipt of the e-mail as mentioned in the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
17. The respondent No.3 Insurance Company shall deposit the award amount with the account of this Tribunal within 45 days. In case, the award amount is deposited by respondent no.3 Insurance Company within 45 days, Nazir of this Tribunal shall make a report upon this award and shall also make requisite entry in the required register. In case, the award amount is not so deposited within 45 days, the Nazir of this Tribunal shall put up a report after 45 days for further needful proceedings.
18. A copy of this award be given to the insurance company as well as to the petitioner free of cost.
19. A copy of this award be sent to the concerned Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate as well as DSLSA as per the provisions of the MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE (MCTAP).
20. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH Announced in the open Tribunal SINGH Date:
2023.09.23 on of 22.09.2023 11:02:58 +0530 (HARVINDER SINGH) ADJ-cum-PO:MACT-01/West, THC/Delhi/22.09.2023 Vikas vs. Gurnam Singh & Ors.MACT No.229/2020 No.30 of 33
FORM-XVI SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE
1. Date of accident : 05.10.2018
2. Name of the injured : Vikas
3. Age of the injured/DOB : 12.09.1995
4. Occupation of the injured: Not proved
5. Income of the injured : Rs.9417/-
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken : 05.10.2018 till date
8. Period of Hospitalization : 06.10.2018 to 30.11.2018.
27.12.2019 to 07.01.2020, 19.05.2020 to 22.05.2020, 15.07.2020 to 17.07.2020, 17.11.2020 to 18.11.2020, 02.01.2021 to 02.01.2021, 22.07.2021 to 24.07.2021, 15.10.2021 to 17.10.2021 and 06.04.2022 to 13.04.2022
9. Whether any permanent disability ?
If yes, give details : The injured has suffered 100% permanent physical disability
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss :
(i) Expenditure on Rs.12,54,887/-
treatment
(ii) Expenditure on Rs.50,000/-
conveyance
(iii) Expenditure on special Rs.50,000/-
diet
(iv) Cost of Rs.18,44,856/-
nursing/attendant
(v) Loss of earning capacity Rs.28,47,744/-
(vi) Loss of Income Rs.5,55,603/-
(loss of earning during
Vikas vs. Gurnam Singh & Ors.
MACT No.229/2020 No.31 of 33
Digitally signed
by HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.09.23
11:03:02 +0530
treatment period)
(vii) Any other loss which NIL
may require any special
treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his
life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for NIL
mental and physical
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.2,50,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.60,000/-
(iv) Dis-figuration NIL
(v) Loss of marriage N.A.
prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, N.A.
inconvenience,
hardships,
disappointment,
frustration, mental
stress, dejectment and
unhappiness in future
life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity :
(i) Percentage of disability The injured has suffered assessed and nature of 100% permanent physical disability as permanent disability. or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or Rs.1,00,000/- (loss of loss of expectation of expectation of life) life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of This tribunal has taken earning capacity in 100% permanent functional relation to disability physical disability of the injured for the purpose of assessment of loss of earning capacity/loss of future income.
(iv) Loss of future income - As above
(Income x% Earning
Capacity x Multiplier)
Vikas vs. Gurnam Singh & Ors.
MACT No.229/2020 No.32 of 33
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.09.23
11:03:06 +0530
14. TOTAL Rs.70,13,090/-
COMPENSATION
15. INTEREST AWARDED 7% per annum
16. Interest amount up to Rs.14,50,930/-
the date of award (W.e.f. 08.10.2020 to
22.09.2023 i.e. 2 years 11
months and 14 days)
Total amount including Rs.84,64,020/-
17. interest (Rs.70,13,090/- +
Rs.14,50,930)
18. Award amount released Rs.20,13,090/-
19. Award amount kept in Rs.50,00,000/- along with
FDRs interest accumulated
20. Mode of disbursement Mentioned in the award
of the award amount to
the claimant(s).
21. Next date for 04.11.2023
compliance of the
award.
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.09.23
11:03:12 +0530
(HARVINDER SINGH)
ADJ-cum-PO:MACT-01/West,
THC/Delhi/22.09.2023
Vikas vs. Gurnam Singh & Ors.
MACT No.229/2020 No.33 of 33