Delhi District Court
Raju (Dar) vs Yash Verma (132/17Lc) on 7 August, 2024
:1:
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARU GUPTA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-01 (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No.: 72/18
Raju v. Yash Verma
CNR No.: DLSE01-000806-2018
1. Raju S/o Nathu Ram
2. Himanshu S/o Sh. Raju
Both R/o
H.No. 636, Gali No.4
Babu Park K.M. Pur
New Delhi.
......Petitioners/claimants
Versus
1. Yash Verma
S/o Sh. Naresh Kumar
R/o H.No. 207,
Village-Aliganj,
K.M.Pur, Delhi.
........Driver/ Respondent no. 1
1.
2. C.P. Verma S/o Sh. B.R. Verma R/o H.No. 207, Village-Ali Ganj, K.M.Pur, New Delhi.
........Owner/ Respondent no.2 MACT NO: 72/18 Raju v. Yash Verma P.No. 1 Of 23 BK :2:
3. ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance Co.
1st floor, Sec-13, Green Park New Delhi.
....Insurance company/Respondent no.3 Date of accident : 06.09.2017 Date of filing of DAR : 30.01.2018 Result of accident : Injury Date of Decision : 07.08.2024.
AWARD
1. The present accident claim is based on a detailed accident report (DAR) filed by the police in terms of provisions of MV Act.
2. As per the investigation by the police, on 06.09.2017 information regarding accident was received vide DD no.35A. When the police reached the spot of accident i.e. JNS Flyover, two scooties bearing no. DL-3SD-S-4488 and DL-3SCK-4548 were found in accidental condition. Police was informed that the injured persons had been removed to the hospital. On reaching the hospital, police recorded statement of injured Raju(claimant no.1) who stated that on 06.09.2017 he was riding his son Himanshu(claimant no.2) to Sai Baba temple, Lodhi Road. After visiting the temple they were returning through B.P. Marg for their house at K.M.Pur. At 8.40 PM, claimant and his son reached JNS Flyover and parked their scooty by the side(kinare) of the Flyover for taking a breath of fresh air. In the meantime, two boys, riding scooty no. DL-3SCK-4548(hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) came from behind at a very fast speed, in a rash and negligent manner and hit the claimant and his son. The driver of the offending vehicle (Yash Verma, Respondent no.1) and his pillion rider Akash(claimant no.3, who has failed to MACT NO: 72/18 Raju v. Yash Verma P.No. 2 Of 23 BK :3: pursue his claim to compensation) also fell on the road. Some public persons removed all the four injured persons to AIIMS Trauma Center where they were treated.
3. On complaint of the claimant no.1, FIR no.132/2017 dated 07.09.2017 was registered u/s 279,337,338 of IPC at PS Lodhi Colony and the matter was investigated. MLC of injured persons was obtained. After investigation a charge sheet was filed before concerned criminal court against the driver of the offending vehicle(Respondent no.1). During investigation, section 3/181MV Act was added as the driver of the offending vehicle was not found to be having a driving licence.
4. Respondent no.1 is driver of offending vehicle, Respondent no.2 (grandfather of Respondent no.1) is owner of offending vehicle while Respondent no.3 is the insurance company with which the offending vehicle was insured.
5. In response to the DAR, written statement/reply was filed by Respondent no.3 denying the occurrence of the accident due to negligence of Respondent no.1 as well as the involvement of the vehicle. It is also pleaded that Respondent no.1 did not even have a valid driving licence at the time of alleged accident. It is further pleaded that the accident, if any, occurred due to sole negligence of the claimants. Existence of insurance policy is however not disputed.
No reply/written statement was filed by Respondent no.1 and 2 despite opportunity.
6. After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed on 01.05.2018.
1. Whether injured Raju, Himanshu and MACT NO: 72/18 Raju v. Yash Verma P.No. 3 Of 23 BK :4: Aakash suffered injuries in a road traffic accident dated 06.09.2017 involving vehicle no. DL-3SCK-4548 driven by R-1, owned by R-2 and insured with R-3, due to rash and negligent driving of R-1? OPP.
2. Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
7. Thereafter, claimant no.1, Raju examined himself as PW-1 and led his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW1/A. As per the affidavit, on 06.09.2017, when PW-1 alongwith his son Himanshu were returning home from Lodhi Colony on his scooty No. DL-3SD-S-4488 via B.P. Marg and reached JNS Flyover, the offending vehicle i.e. Scooty No. DL-3SCK-4548 hit into PW-1 from behind. Such offending vehicle was being driven by Respondent no.1 in rash and negligent manner and as a result of the accident, PW-1 fell on the road and received grievous injury. He was removed to AIIMS hospital where he was examined and treated vide MLC no. 50046494/17. He relied upon his Aadhar card as Ex.PW-1/1, his Aadhar card as Ex.PW-1/2, MLC Ex.PW- 1/3. He has stated that he remained admitted in AIIMS Truama Center from 06.09.2017 to 07.09.2017 and relied upon discharge summary Ex.PW-1/4. As per PW-1, he was again admitted to Safdarjung hospital from 07.09.2017 to 18.09.2017 and relied upon discharge summary as Ex.PW-1/5. He has deposed that he had suffered a fracture and underwent medical treatment from time to time, medical treatment record/OPD card of which is Ex.PW-1/6. As per PW-1, he also incurred conveyance expenses in visiting the hospital. He has testified that he was working as a MACT NO: 72/18 Raju v. Yash Verma P.No. 4 Of 23 BK :5: driver at the time of accident and earning Rs.25,000/- p.m. PW-1 has stated that due to the accident, he has become unfit for a job and suffered great loss of income. He has relied upon medical bills to the tune of Rs.23,650/- as Ex.PW-1/7 and his educational certificate as Ex.PW-1/8. As per PW-1, he has also spent Rs.60,00/- as attendant charges, Rs.50,000/- on special diet and Rs.20,000/- conveyance. He has also relied upon DAR and documents filed therewith as Ex.PW-1/9(colly). PW-1 was duly cross-examined by insurance company. No other evidence was led by petitioner.
8. Respondent no.3 led its evidence by examining Sh. Rishabh Kondilya, Legal Manager, ICICI Lombard, as R-3W-1. R-3W-1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.R-3W- 1/A. R-3W-1/A stated that though the offending vehicle was insured with Respondent no.3 vide policy no.3005/112078920/ 01/000 for period from 14.02.2017 to 13.02.2018. It is stated that since the accident has occurred while the offending vehicle was being driven by Respondent no.1 who did not hold a valid driving licence and no valid driving licence of the driver was produced by the owner or the driver of the offending vehicle despite notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC, Respondent no.3 is not liable to pay compensation. R-3W-1 was not cross-examined despite opportunity. No other evidence was led by respondents.
9. Final arguments in details were addressed on behalf of the claimants and the insurance company. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, evidence adduced and arguments addressed, issue wise findings are as under:
Issue No. 1MACT NO: 72/18 Raju v. Yash Verma P.No. 5 Of 23 BK :6: Whether injured Raju, Himanshu and Aakash suffered injuries in a road traffic accident dated 06.09.2017 involving vehicle no. DL-3SCK-
4548 driven by R-1, owned by R-2 and insured with R-3, due to rash and negligent driving of R-1? OPP.
10. Before proceeding to decide the above issue, it is apposite to note that as a settled principle of law, proceedings under The Motor Vehicle Act are not considered akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not applicable. Reliance is placed upon decision in Bimla Devi & ors. vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors. (2009) 13 SC 535, in Parmeshwari vs. Amir Chand & Ors., 2011 (1) SCR 1096 and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ 287, wherein it has been held that the negligence has to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view has to be taken.
11. In the instant case, the petitioner has asserted that the accident occurred on 06.09.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by Respondent no.1. The factum of accident or rash and negligent driving, has not been denied by Respondent no.1 and Respondent no.2. There is nothing on record to doubt the veracity of the claim. In fact, the police, after investigating the case has filed a chargesheet for offence u/s 279/337/338 of IPC and section 3 r/w Section 181 of MV Act against Respondent no.1. In National Insurance Co. vs. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, it was laid down that completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet are sufficient proof of negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
MACT NO: 72/18 Raju v. Yash Verma P.No. 6 Of 23 BK :7: In the present case, neither the driver nor the owner of the offending vehicle have either filed their written statement to rebut the claim of the claimant nor have led any evidence in their defence. It may further be noted that in Cholamandlam insurance company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh 2009 (3) AD Delhi 310, it was held that if driver of offending vehicle does not enter the witness box, an adverse inference can be drawn against him. Thus, it stands proved that the claimants suffered injuries in road traffic accident due to rash and negligence of Respondent no.1.
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
12. Though no plea of contributory negligence has been specifically taken in the written statement filed on behalf of Respondent no.3, it is observed that during cross-examination of PW-1, questions and suggestions have been put to PW-1 to prove contributory negligence on the part of PW-1 in having stood on the roadside after parking his vehicle in an area where no parking was allowed. PW-1 has admitted that he was standing on roadside and that there was no parking area where he alongwith his son was standing. He denied to have been negligently standing without adhering to traffic rules and regulations.
13. Record reveals that petitioner no.1/injured has relied upon DAR as Ex.PW-1/9. The same contains the FIR registered in the present case at the instance of petitioner no.1, on his statement made to the police on 07.09.2017. As per such statement, petitioner no.1 had alleged that the accident occurred at 8.40 PM when he and his son had reached at JNS Flyover on their scooty and had parked their scooty on a side of a flyover. The exact words used in the complaint are " maine apni scooty road ke MACT NO: 72/18 Raju v. Yash Verma P.No. 7 Of 23 BK :8: kinare par khadi karke main apne ladke to taazi hawa khilwa raha tha". As such, the same contents are reflected in the FIR as well. Even in his testimony, PW-1 has stated "... one offending vehicle scooty bearing no.DL-3SCK-4548 being driven by Respondent no.1 in very rash and negligently manner and came and hit into me from back side...". Petitioner has not claimed that Respondent no.1 "hit his vehicle". Thus, it is evident that the accident occurred at the time when the petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 were standing on the flyover with their vehicle parked by the side. Thus, having regard to the fact that the petitioners themselves were in violation of the traffic rule by parking their vehicle on the flyover where the accident occurred and risked their lives by standing on the road, this Tribunal assesses contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner no.1 to be 10% and on the part of petitioner no.2 (keeping in view his age as at that time)to be 5%.
14. In totality of circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the claimants have been able to prove on the scales of preponement of probabilities that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver/respondent no.1 on the date and time of accident but at the same time, also contributed to the negligence by having stood on the flyover after parking his vehicle on such flyover where no parking was permissible. Petitioners are thus liable to a deduction of 10% each out of the total compensation. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
Issue no. 2 MACT NO: 72/18 Raju v. Yash Verma P.No. 8 Of 23 BK :9: Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP.
15. As discussed in issue no.1, claimants are entitled to compensation. The liability to pay compensation to the claimants is dependent on the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and its compliance or violation by Respondent no.2(owner of the offending vehicle). In the present case, it has been established through examination of R-3W-1 as well as through DAR Ex.PW- 1/9 that Respondent no.1 did not have a valid driving licence at the time of accident. It is further observed that the record reveals that Respondent no.2 is none other than grandfather of Respondent no.1 and hence assumed to have had knowledge of the non-possession of a valid driving licence by Respondent no.1, at the time of handing over his vehicle to such respondent. It has been held in IFFCO Tokio General Insurance company v. Geeta Devi, 2023 SCC online SC 1398 (decided on 30.10.2023) that it is upon the insurance company to prove a willful breach on the part of the owner of the offending vehicle/insured. It has further been held that mere fact that the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was fake, per se would not absolve the insurer unless it is proved that the owner or the insured was aware of the fact that the driving licence of the driver was fake and still permitted him to drive (Reliance placed on Ram Chandra Singh v. Rajaram(2018) 8 SCC 799)). In the instant case, the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle are relatives. Also, the age of Respondent no.1 was barely 17 years (as reflected in his MLC as no other age proof of Respondent MACT NO: 72/18 Raju v. Yash Verma P.No. 9 Of 23 BK : 10 : no.1 filed) in which case, his grandfather i.e. owner of the vehicle/ Respondent no.2 is bound to have known and anticipated the risk of handing over a motor vehicle to Respondent no.1. Such a gross neglect on the part of Respondent no.2 would certainly be construed a willful violation on the part of the insured i.e. Respondent no.2.
In such circumstances, the liability of compensation falls primarily upon the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, in view of the settled law, the compensation will be payable in the first instance by the insurance company/R-3 but with liberty to recover the same jointly and severally from the driver and owner of the vehicle in question i.e. Respondent no. 1 and 2.
16. As regards the quantum of compensation, this court is governed by the law laid down by Hon'le Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 Supreme Court cases 343, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. (2003) 6SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.(2017) 16 SCC 680. The gist of the law is that 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 the 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 MACT NO: 72/18 Raju v. Yash Verma P.No. 10 Of 23 BK : 11 : 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.
17. Further it can be noted that the heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
17.1. In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). 17.2. It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that MACT NO: 72/18 Raju v. Yash Verma P.No. 11 Of 23 BK : 12 : 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.
17.3. 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.
17.4. Award under the head of future medical expenses--Item
(iii)--depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof.
17.5. 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. Decisions of Hon'ble SC and Hon'ble High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. 17.6. It was observed by Hon'ble Sc in such case of Raj Kumar (supra) that what usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability
--Item (ii) (a).
17.7. We are not concerned with assessment regarding loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability in this case, as petitioner did not suffer any permanent disability.
18. The present DAR has been pursued by only two claimants namely Raju aged about 49 years and his son Himanshu aged MACT NO: 72/18 Raju v. Yash Verma P.No. 12 Of 23 BK : 13 : about 17 years. It is pertinent to note that a third injured namely Akshay has not pursued the case and as such, claim for compensation is being decided qua claimant Raju and Himanshu only.
The age of petitioners has not been disputed. As per Ex.PW-1/4(discharge summary issued by AIIMS), Petitioner no.1 suffered fracture in the shaft of femur. The injury suffered by him is thus considered to be grievous in nature. As per MLC of petitioner/claimant Himanshu, petitioner no.2 has suffered simple injury and was discharged on the same day (with only advise to apply betadine ointment locally). No medical expenses are thus shown to have been incurred by petitioner no.2.
As per para-9 of affidavit by way of evidence filed by PW- 1 i.e. Ex.PW-1/A, he has claimed expenses pertaining to injury to the tune of Rs.23,650/- for petitioner no.1 and accordingly granted. Same is confirmed by the medical bills placed on record. No medical expense bill of petitioner no.2 has been filed. As such, same is considered to be nil for petitioner no.2.
Since petitioner no.2 was barely 17 years of age and not claimed to employed or working, no loss of income can be computed with regard to petitioner no.2.
However, as regards loss of earning of petitioner no.1, it first needs to be ascertained the nature of job and salary/wages drawn by petitioner no.1 at the time of accident. Petitioner no.1 has claimed to be a driver and earning Rs.25,000/- p.m. but has not filed any documentary proof with regard to his employment. He has also not examined his employer to prove that he was working as a driver or filed any salary slip or bank account MACT NO: 72/18 Raju v. Yash Verma P.No. 13 Of 23 BK : 14 : statement to prove his income. With regard to the educational qualification only a 10th class certificate of petitioner no.1 has been placed. As such, income of petitioner no.1 has to be assessed as that of a semi-skilled labour drawing minimum wages prevalent in Delhi at the time of accident. The same were Rs.14,698/-. As such, monthly income of the petitioner is assessed to be Rs.14,698/- p.m.
19. Now, in order to assess loss of income on account of the accident and the injuries sustained by him, it is proved through discharge summary Ex.PW-1/5 and Ex.PW-1/6 that the petitioner no.1 remained hospitalized from 06.09.2017 to 07.09.2017 at AIIMS hospital and thereafter from 07.09.2017 to 18.09.2017 at Safdarjung hospital i.e. for a total of about 12 days. Though no document has been placed to show that the petitioner remained absent from his duties or had to withdraw from his employment on account of the injury, having regard to the fact that the petitioner suffered a fracture of femur bone, it is assumed that the petitioner would not have been able to resume work for at least three months. Hence, loss of income is assessed as loss of salary for 3 months. Accordingly, loss of income would be Rs.14,698/- X3=Rs.44,094/-. Since no proof of permanent disability has been filed, no loss of future prospect or income can be granted.
20. In this background of material and evidence on record, in the present case having regard to the law as also discussed above regarding compensation, in the present case award amount is calculated as under:
QUA PETITIONER NO.1 Sl. Pecuniary loss : - Quantum MACT NO: 72/18 Raju v. Yash Verma P.No. 14 Of 23 BK : 15 : no.
1. (I) Expenditure on treatment : Rs.23,650/-
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance : Rs.5,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : Rs.5,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing / attendant : Rs.20,000/-
(v) Loss of income :14,698X3 Rs.44,094/-
(vi) Cost of artificial limbs (if Not applicable applicable) :
(vii) Any other loss / expenditure : Not applicable
2. Non-Pecuniary Loss :
(I) Compensation of mental and physical Rs.5,000/- shock :
(ii) Pain and suffering : Rs.5,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life : Rs.5,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration : Nil
(v) Loss of marriage prospects : NA
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity (I) Percentage of disability assessed and NA nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of NA expectation of life span on account of disability :
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity NA in relation to disability: In this case no permanent disability is proved on record.
(iv) Loss of future Income: NA
Total Compensation Rs.1,12,744/-
Deduction on account of contributory 11274/-
MACT NO: 72/18 Raju v. Yash Verma P.No. 15 Of 23 BK
: 16 :
negligence @10%.
Total compensation after deduction Rs.1,01,470/-
Interest: Simple interest
@7.5% p.a.
from the date
of filing of
DAR till
actual
realization of
Award
amount/
compensation.
21. With regard to petitioner no.2 who had suffered only simple injury, considering his age, nature of injury, he is not entitled to any compensation under the pecuniary head, however, his entitled to compensation under the non-pecuniary heads:
(I) Compensation of mental and physical Rs.5,000/- shock :
(ii) Pain and suffering : Rs.5,000/- (iii) Loss of amenities of life : Rs.5,000/- Total compensation Rs.15,000/- Deduction on account of contributory Rs.750/- negligence @5%. Total compensation after deduction Rs.14,250/-
22. The total compensation payable to the claimants would be Rs.1,15,720/- (Rs.1,01,470 granted to petitioner no.1 and Rs.14,250/- to petitioner no.2) with simple interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR ill its actual realization.
LIABILITY
23. As already discussed, principal award amount/ MACT NO: 72/18 Raju v. Yash Verma P.No. 16 Of 23 BK : 17 : compensation will be payable by Insurance company/ Respondent no.3 with simple interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR till actual realization with recovery rights to the compensation amount from Respondent no.1 and 2.
Directions Regarding Deposit of Award Amount in Bank:
24. In compliance of directions issued vide order dated 16.11.2021 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition Civil No.534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India the award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT SAVING ACCOUNT No. 00000042706875094, IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir in the prescribed format i.e. MCOP Number on the file of (Claims Tribunal Name) Date of award, Compensation Amount, Income Tax Deduction at Source, Bank Transaction Reference No./Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. In turn, the State Bank of India, Saket Courts Branch shall receive the deposited sum and capture the above information and furnish a statement of account on a daily basis to the Nazir of this Tribunal to reconcile the deposits of compensation and the respective MCOPs towards which such deposits are made. On such deposits being made, the insurance company shall submit a letter to the Nazir of this Tribunal enclosing a copy of the said bank advice, in prescribed format as above, as per which the deposit made to the bank account of this Tribunal, to enable this Tribunal to keep tab on the deposits made and the MCOPs for which they were MACT NO: 72/18 Raju v. Yash Verma P.No. 17 Of 23 BK : 18 : made. The Payment advice for remittance of compensation is as under:
PAYMENT ADVICE FOR REMITTANCE OF
COMPENSATION :
............ Bank ...................
To:
............... Court ........................ We confirm remittance of compensation as follows on instructions of ................................... (insurance company):-
MCOP Number On the file of (Claims Tribunal Name), Place Date of award Amount Deposited, Income Tax Deduction at Source, if any Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. Insurance company of offending vehicle, on deposit, shall also send a copy of the payment advice in above format to this Tribunal and serve a copy of the same on the claimants or their counsel as the case may be.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP).
25. This court is in receipt of the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors whereby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has formulated MACAD(Motor Accident Claims Annunity Deposit Scheme) which has been made effective from 01.01.2019. The said orders dated 07.12.2018 also mentions that 21 banks including State Bank of India is one of such banks which are to adhere to MACAD. The State Bank of India, Saket Courts, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
MACT NO: 72/18 Raju v. Yash Verma P.No. 18 Of 23 BK : 19 : Apportionment:-
26. Another issue which is to be decided is out of such Award amount, how much is to be released at present and how much is to kept in the form of FDR for future financial used of the petitioner.
27. At this stage, it is relevant to the refer to the judgment of A. V. Padma & Ors. Vs., R. Venugopal & Ors. (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 378:
"......In the case of Susamma Thomas (supra), this Court issued certain guidelines in order to "safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries due to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation".
Even as per the guidelines issued by this Court Court, long term fixed deposit of amount of compensation is mandatory only in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows. In the case of illiterate claimants, the Tribunal is allowed to consider the request for lumpsum payment for effecting purchase of any movable property such as agricultural implements, rickshaws etc. to earn a living. However, in such cases, the Tribunal shall make sure that the amount is actually spent for the purpose and the demand is not a ruse to withdraw money. In the case of semi-illiterate claimants, the Tribunal should ordinarily invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. But if the Tribunal is satisfied for reasons to be stated in writing that the whole or part of the amount is required for expanding an existing business or for purchasing some property for earning a livelihood, the Tribunal can release the whole or part of the amount of compensation to the claimant provided the Tribunal will ensure that the amount is invested for the purpose for which it is demanded and paid. In the case of literate persons, it is not mandatory to invest the amount of compensation in long term MACT NO: 72/18 Raju v. Yash Verma P.No. 19 Of 23 BK : 20 : fixed deposit.
The expression used in guideline No. (iv) issued by this Court is that in the case of literate persons also the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i), whereas in the guideline Nos.
(i), (ii), (iii) and (v), the expression used is that the Tribunal should. Moreover, in the case of literate persons, the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i) only if, having regard to the age, fiscal background and strata of the society to which the claimant belongs and such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks that in the larger interest of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded, it is necessary to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit.
Thus, sufficient discretion has been given to the Tribunal not to insist on investment of the compensation amount in long term fixed deposit and to release even the whole amount in the case of literate persons. However, the Tribunals are often taking a very rigid stand and are mechanically ordering in almost all cases that the amount of compensation shall be invested in long term fixed deposit. They are taking such a rigid and mechanical approach without understanding and appreciating the distinction drawn by this Court in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows and in the case of semiliterate and literate persons. It needs to be clarified that the above guidelines were issued by this Court only to safeguard the interests of the claimants, particularly the minors, illiterates and others whose amounts are sought to be withdrawn on some fictitious grounds. The guidelines were not to be understood to mean that the Tribunals were to take a rigid stand while considering an application seeking release of the money.
The guidelines cast a responsibility on the Tribunals MACT NO: 72/18 Raju v. Yash Verma P.No. 20 Of 23 BK : 21 : to pass appropriate orders after examining each case on its own merits. However, it is seen that even in cases when there is no possibility or chance of the feed being frittered away by the beneficiary owing to ignorance, illiteracy or susceptibility to exploitation, investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit is directed by the Tribunals as a matter of course and in a routine manner, ignoring the object and the spirit of the guidelines issued by this Court and the genuine requirements of the claimants. Even in the case of literate persons, the Tribunals are automatically ordering investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit without recording that having regard to the age or fiscal background or the strata of the society to which the claimant belongs or such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks it necessary to direct such investment in the larger interests of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded to him.
The Tribunals very often dispose of the claimant's application for withdrawal of the amount of compensation in a mechanical manner and without proper application of mind. This has resulted in serious injustice and hardship to the claimants. The Tribunals appear to think that in view of the guidelines issued by this Court, in every case the amount of compensation should be invested in long term fixed deposit and under no circumstances the Tribunal can release the entire amount of compensation to the claimant even if it is required by him. Hence a change of attitude and approach on the part of the Tribunals is necessary in the interest of justice..."
28. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and the abovesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Supreme Court, whole of Award amount is released to MACT NO: 72/18 Raju v. Yash Verma P.No. 21 Of 23 BK : 22 : both the petitioners/injured, alongwith simple interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR till its actual realization, in their bank accounts respectively near their place of residence as per rule/ directions.
29. In accordance with the orders dated 08.02.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 in Rajesh Tyagi and others Vs. Jaibir Singh and others, Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager has been appointed as Nodal Officer of SBI 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 to. A copy of this order be sent by e-mail to the aforesaid Nodal Officer of the aforesaid bank by the Ahlmad of the Court immediately in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court as contained 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 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
FORM -VI-B SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1 Date of accident 06.09.2017
2 Name of injured persons (1) Raju
(2) Himanshu
3 Age of the injured Raju 49 years
Age of the injured Himanshu 17 years
4 Occupation of the injured Raju claimed to be Driver
MACT NO: 72/18 Raju v. Yash Verma P.No. 22 Of 23 BK
: 23 :
but not proved
NA
Occupation of injured Himanshu
5 Income of the injured Raju Minimum wages of
Delhi of semi-skilled
Income of the injured Himanshu labour (Rs.14,698/-)
Nil
6 Nature of injury of Raju Grievous
Nature of injury of Himanshu Simple
7 Medical treatment taken by the AIIMS, Safdarjung
injured Raju hospital
Medical treatment taken by the NA
injured Himanshu
8 Period of Hospitalization of Raju Twelve days
Period of hospitalization of Himanshu NA 9 Whether any permanent disability of NA Raju and Himanshu?
30. List for compliance on 09.09.2024.
Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA
Date:
Announced in open Court GUPTA 2024.08.07
16:15:36
On 07th August, 2024 +0530
(Charu Gupta)
PO-MACT-01(South-East)
Saket Court/ New Delhi
MACT NO: 72/18 Raju v. Yash Verma P.No. 23 Of 23 BK