Delhi District Court
Ahsas vs . Ganeshi Lal & Ors. on 22 December, 2020
Ahsas vs. Ganeshi Lal & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ATUL KUMAR GARG : PRESIDING OFFICER :
MACT : SOUTH DISTT. : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
Petition No. : 358/18
FIR No. : 161/18, PS : Hauz Khas
Ahsas
S/o Sh. Ram Nawal
R/o S126/128,
Kanak Durga Colony,
Sec. 12, R.K. Puram, New Delhi ......injured
...... Petitioner
Versus
1. Ganashi Lal
S/o Sh. Radhey Shyam
R/o Vill. Sultanganj, Khirni Khohra
PO Doroli PS Rajghar,
Distt. Alwar, Rajasthan ..... (driver)
2. DTC Depot,
Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi. ..... (owner)
3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
New Delhi. ..... (Insurance Co.)
......Respondents
Date of Institution : 14.09.2018
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 15.12.2020
Date of pronouncement : 22.12.2020
JUDGMENT:
1. By this judgment I shall dispose of the Detailed Accident Report (DAR) filed by SHO police station Hauz Khas for the injuries sustained to Ahsas in a road accident on 22.06.2018 at 00.05 AM at Aurovindo Marg, Gate No. 1, AIIMS Petition No. :358/18 Page No.1/17 Ahsas vs. Ganeshi Lal & Ors.
Hospital, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. DL 1PC7982 being driven by Ganeshi Lal, owned by DTC and insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd.
2. Joint written statement is filed on behalf of respondent no.(s) 1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner wherein it is stated that the respondent no. 1 was falsely implicated in the present case. As per the respondent no. 1, on 20.06.2018 when he was driving towards Shahdara Terminal then suddenly at Laxmi Nagar, the driver felt something wrong in the mechanism of the bus. The driver halted the bus and inspected the bus and found that the front air balloons of break were leaking. The driver then immediately called at Vasant Vihar Depot and gave report about the bus to the duty officer. The duty officer thereafter contacted Tata Motors who sent a mechanic on the spot to inspect the bus. The mechanic inspected the bus and tried to fix the Air Pressure Balloon Breaking system on the spot, but could not fix the same and therefore, asked the driver to take the bus to Vasant Vihar Service Station at a slow speed. Accordingly, the driver the respondent no. 1 was driving the bus at the speed of 30 km/hr. As the bus reached near AIIMS, the claimant/injured, a pedestrian tried to cross the road in hurried manner. However, when he spotted the bus arriving near him, he suddenly changed his mind and decided to go back and wait instead. As the claimant tried to walk back, his foot slipped and he fell down on the road and his leg came under the wheel of the bus. The driver got down from the bus in order to tend and help the injured but people standing nearby started abusing, scolding and beating the driver and the driver could barely manage to leave the spot. Even otherwise, the vehicle was insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd vide policy certificate No. 0411003117P117531985 from 02.03.2018 to 01.03.2018 while the date of the alleged accident is 20.06.2018, and therefore the liability if any, falls squarely on the Petition No. :358/18 Page No.2/17 Ahsas vs. Ganeshi Lal & Ors.
abovesaid insurance company only to pay the compensation.
3. The respondent no.3 has filed legal offer to settle the present case with the injured. However, the same was not accepted to the injured.
4. For just adjudication of the case following issues were framed vide order dated 12.12.2018:
1.Whether injured Ahsas sustained injuries in a road accident on 22.06.2018 at 00.05 AM at Aurvindo Marg, Gate No. 1, AIIMS Hospital, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. DL1PC7982 being driven by Ganeshi lal, owned by DTC and insured with United India Ins. Co. Ltd.?(OPP)
2.To what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled and from whom ?
3.Relief.
5. The petitioner examined himself. Sh. Ahsas examined as PW1 who tendered his affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the following documents : Copy of Aadhar Card Ex.PW1/1 Affidavit of Sheela Devi Ex.PW1/2.
Copy of medical bills and conveyance bills Ex.PW1/3
Copy of DAR Ex.PW1/4 colly.
Copy of identity card of injured and declaration of the institute Ex.PW1/5
colly.
Copies of certificate awarded to the injured Ex.PW1/6 colly.
Disability certificate Ex.PW1/7.
6. It is pertinent to mention here that Sh. Sohan Pal, Workshop Manager, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi was examined as Court witness who has filed the proposed prosthetics price guidelines Ex.CW1/1 .
7. The respondents did not examine any witness.
Petition No. :358/18 Page No.3/17Ahsas vs. Ganeshi Lal & Ors.
8. I have heard arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the record. My findings on the issues are as follows :
I S S U E No. 19. Needless to say that for making someone entitled U/s 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle needs to be proved and to prove the same the Tribunal need not go into the technicalities because strict rules of procedure and evidence are not followed. Basically, in road accident cases, Tribunal has simply to quantify the compensation which is just, rational and reasonable on the basis of enquiry. It is an admitted legal position that the negligence on part of the driver with respect to use of the vehicle needs to be established and the same is to be established on the principle of preponderance of probabilities as decided in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Harsh Mishra & Ors. III (2015) ACC 435 Delhi.
10. PW1 has stated that on 22.06.2018 at about 12.15 a.m at midnight the petitioner/injured alongwith his friend was near the AIIMS hospital and crossing the road from AIIMS hospital gate No. 1, and at that time one DTC Green Bus bearing no. DL1PC7982 came from the side of INA at a very high speed, driven by Sh. Ganeshi Lal in a rash, negligent and dangerous manner and the bus hit the petitioner/injured from back side and due to his rash and negligent driving , the injured fell down on the road and his left leg came under the front left wheel of the above said bus and his leg was crushed badly. The offending bus was stopped by public. Thereafter, he was admitted in Safdarjung Hospital on 22.06.2018 and remained in the hospital till 30.06.2018 and as advised by the doctor, left foot was amputated with the result the injured has become totally handicapped. Due to the Petition No. :358/18 Page No.4/17 Ahsas vs. Ganeshi Lal & Ors.
accident, the injured has become permanently physically handicapped person lost his limp (left foot) and as such he now will not be able to take part in any of the physical activities which he used to perform in the school/college.
In his crossexamination, he stated that he has not seen the offending vehicle approaching him and had no occasion to save himself from the vehicle hitting him. After the accident he was in semi conscious and after reaching the hospital he became totally unconscious. He denied that accident happened due to his own negligence as after the classes of his institute were over, he alongwith other students were creating ruckus in the middle of the road. He stated in his crossexamination that he was not aware if the other students damaged the offending vehicle and beaten the driver of the bus. He also denied that he was first hit by car and then his foot was crushed under the wheel of the offending vehicle. He denied that the bills filed by him in the Court issued by Dr. Subhash Chander, MBBS MD (Honorary), Ex.HCMS, MRS, (London), Ex. MO YMCA UNI, Consultant Physician & Psychotherapist are forged and fabricated. He admits that bills from page 39 to 46 are not original and these are photocopies. HE stated that he is 12 th pass and further taken admission in 1 st year in BA programme. He further stated that he has not appeared in the examination.
11. In the present case the petitioner has filed certified copy of criminal record which includes charge sheet, site plan etc. which is the para of the DAR Ex.PW1/4. No other version of accident has come on record except the one as narrated by the injured. The statement of the injured that the offending vehicle came from opposite side and hit them from back side finds support with the fact that the I.O. seized the offending vehicle and got the mechanically inspected. The argument of counsel for the respondent no. 2 that it was the petitoiner who come under front of the bus has no meaning in view of the fact that the IO who had Petition No. :358/18 Page No.5/17 Ahsas vs. Ganeshi Lal & Ors.
reached to the spot after receiving the information found the accidental DTC bus whose side and front door mirror were broken. Had accident not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving DTC bus driver, bus has not even stopped by the public and got damaged it. The above said facts also have been supported by the PW1 where he stated that public got stopped the bus. From the testimony of PW1, police report, it has been established on record that the accident was happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.1. Even charge sheet has been filed against the respondent no.1.Therefore, in view of the above discussion it is held that Ahsas sustained injuries in a road accident on 22.06.2018 at 00.05 AM at Aurovindo Marg, Gate No. 1, AIIMS Hospital, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. DL1PC7982 being driven by Ganeshi Lal, owned by DTC and insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd.
This issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
I S S U E No. 212. The petitioner has claimed compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by him. In a road accident a person is entitled to compensation for the pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages for the injuries sustained to him.
13. Let me assess the compensation which the claimants are entitled for under different heads.
MEDICAL EXPENSES :
14. In the present case the petitioner has filed original medical bill of Rs.48,073/. Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 had stated that some of the bills are found forged. However, except given the suggestion that bills are forged and fabricated nothing came on record, therefore, I award Rs.48,073/ to the petitioner Petition No. :358/18 Page No.6/17 Ahsas vs. Ganeshi Lal & Ors.
towards medical expenses.
PAIN AND SUFFERINGS AND ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :
15. As per the discharge summary, the petitioner was diagnosed with crush injury. He remained hospitalised in Safdarjung Hospital for several days. As per the MLC, the injuries on the petitioner were grievous in nature. As per the disability certificate the injured has suffered 50% permanent physical impairment in relation to left lower limb. Having regard to the injuries, treatment and disability of the petitioner, I award him Rs.1,00,000/ towards pain and sufferings and enjoyment of life SPECIAL DIET, ATTENDANT AND CONVEYANCE CHARGES :
16. In the present case the petitioner has not placed on record any document with regard to special diet, conveyance and attendant charges. However, the injuries on his person were such that he must have taken special diet for his early recovery. He must have spent some amount on conveyance and attendant.
Therefore, looking into all the facts, I award Rs.50,000/ to the petitioner towards special diet, conveyance and attendant charges.
LOSS OF STUDY :
17. The injured is a promising young boy of aged about 19 years and a student of Indian Institute of Computer Science (Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology), Govt. of India by qualifying the ScholarshipCum Aptitude Test 2018 Ex.PW1/5 colly. The injured is an intelligent student, Racer, Dancer, Cadet of NCC, Actor and a social activist. The petitioner was awarded several certificates in the abovesaid fields which are Ex.PW1/6 colly.
Injury of the petitioner is such of a nature that he had missed study Petition No. :358/18 Page No.7/17 Ahsas vs. Ganeshi Lal & Ors.
which he had pursuing in Indian Institute of Computer Science (Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology), Govt. of India. He is a young student who had been pursuing the professional course after passing the 12 th examination. Certainly he would have caused the financial loss as well atleast for a year, therefore, considering the same, I award Rs.1,00,000/ towards study loss.
LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF DISABILITY
18. The law with respect to the earning capacity of a student pursuing a professional course is wellsettled that the Claims Tribunal has to assess the earning capacity of the injured considering the nature of the professional course being pursued by the injured and the prospects of his income after completing the course.
19. The argument of the respondent's counsel that the petitioner is a student and as such nominal income would have been taken for assessing the loss of income on account of disability has no merit keeping in view of the fact that the applicant is pursuing the professional course after completing the 12 th . Certainly he would not have to do labour job or unskilled job after completing the professional course. Here in this case, the injured was 19 years old and a student of Indian Institute of Computer Science (Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology) Govt. of India by qualifying the ScholarshipCumAptitude Test 2018. Thus, considering his education qualification, certainly he would have earned alteast Rs. 20,000/ per month if the accident has not been occurred and he has not suffered 50% disability in the left lower limb and left foot was amputated.
In a very recent judgment announced by the Supreme Court of India in case title Sri Anthony alias Anthony Swamy v. The Manging Director, K.S.R.T.C. on 10.06.2020. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the Petition No. :358/18 Page No.8/17 Ahsas vs. Ganeshi Lal & Ors.
principles set out for grant of compensation in cases of permanent physical functional disability in case title Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anrs., 2011(1) SCC 343 : "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, the 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.
11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent 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 terms 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 the 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.
20. Definitely the injury effects also future prospects. The income which this tribunal has determined herein can not be static in future. In the recent judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case title Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Petition No. :358/18 Page No.9/17 Ahsas vs. Ganeshi Lal & Ors.
Kumar and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2567 of 2020 wherein it was held that future prospects must be considered even in the case of permanent disability. Here in the present case, as per the disability certificate the petitioner has suffered 50% permanent disability in relation to his Left Lower Limb. As per the Aadhar Card of the petitioner Ex.PW1/1, the date of year is 1999, the accident took place on 22.06.2018. Therefore, he was 19 years of age at the time of accident. This disability would definitely affect his future working/prospects as well as his day to day movement. As a matter of rule the half of the functional disability of anyone of the limb has to be taken off for the purpose of calculation of future prospects. However, looking into the age of the petitioner and the disability I take him functional disability as 30%. Taking a multiplier of 18, the future loss of income comes to Rs.28,000/ (20,000/ + 20,000/ x 40/100) x 12 x 18 x 30% = Rs.18,14,400/. I therefore, award Rs.18,14,400/ to the petitioner towards Future Loss of Income on account of permanent disability.
Loss of Amenities :
21. Due to the permanent disability, the petitioner would not be able to participate in the normal activities of his daily life to pursue his talents, recreation interest, hobbies and evocations. The injuries would also have an effect his social and married life. I therefore, award Rs. 1,00,000/ to the petitioner towards loss of amenities and married life.
COST OF ARTIFICIAL LIMB :
22. As per the document placed on record which has been signed by Sh.
Sohan Pal, Workshop Manager, "the patient (Name Ahsas, age 19 years, left trans tarsal amputee) has appeared before the committee for the prosthesis evaluation on 14.05.2019 and the petitioner may be reimbursed the cost of prosthesis mentioned Petition No. :358/18 Page No.10/17 Ahsas vs. Ganeshi Lal & Ors.
on the page number 21 of the price list (Trans Tibial Prosthesis) proposed by the committee". As per the price of partial foot silicone prosthesis was priced as Rs.60,000/. No evidence has been produced by the petitioner that how much time the said full foot silicone prosthesis priced Rs.60,000/ had been run, however considering the fact that atleast the full foot silicone prosthesis has to be changed in every five years atleast, therefore, this Court recommended Rs.60,000/ for five years. The petitioner is merely at 19 years old, therefore full foot silicone prosthesis has to be changed in every five years. Atleast he would have alive upto 60 years which is normal at present, he would have changed the full foot silicone prosthesis in eight times atleast which cost to Rs.4,80,000/ (Rs.60,000/ x 8).
23. The total compensation in favour of the petitioner is assessed as under :
MEDICAL EXPENSES : Rs. 48,073/
PAIN & SUFFERINGS & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE : Rs. 1,00,000/
SPEICAL DIET, CONVEYANCE & ATTENDANT : Rs. 50,000/
LOSS of STUDY : Rs. 1,00,000/
LOSS OF DISABILIT Y : Rs. 18,14,400/
LOSS OF AMENITIES : Rs. 1,00,000/
COST OF ARTIFICIAL LIMB : Rs. 4,80,000/
============
TOTAL : Rs.26,92,473/
============
LIABILITY
24. As regards the liability, the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1, therefore primary liability to compensate the petitioner is that of respondent no.1. As the offending vehicle was owned by respondent no.2, so, it is vicariously liable to compensate the petitioner. It is an admitted position on record that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.3, therefore, respondent no.3 becomes contractually liable to pay the compensation towards the liability of Petition No. :358/18 Page No.11/17 Ahsas vs. Ganeshi Lal & Ors.
the insured.
25. Issue no. 2 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent no.3.
RELIEF
26. In view of my findings, I award Rs.26,92,473/ (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Ninety Two Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Three Only) to the injured as compensation alongwith interest @8% per annum from the date of filing the DAR till its realisation.
Out of this amount, an amount of Rs.20,00,000/ is directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit in the following phased manner :
1. Rs.1,00,000/ for a period of 01 year.
2. Rs.1,00,000/ for a period of 02 years.
3. Rs.1,00,000/ for a period of 03 years.
4. Rs.1,00,000/ for a period of 04 years.
5. Rs.1,00,000/ for a period of 05 years.
6. Rs.1,00,000/ for a period of 06 years.
7. Rs.1,00,000/ for a period of 07 years.
8. Rs.1,00,000/ for a period of 08 years.
9. Rs.1,00,000/ for a period of 09 years.
10. Rs.1,00,000/ for a period of 10 years.
11. Rs.2,00,000/ for a period of 11 years.
12. Rs.2,00,000/ for a period of 12 years.
13. Rs.2,00,000/ for a period of 13 years.
14. Rs.2,00,000/ for a period of 14 years.
15. Rs.2,00,000/ for a period of 15 years.
Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
27. In consonance to the idea by which part of the awarded amount is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit / savings account by Hon'ble high Court, respondent no.3 Petition No. :358/18 Page No.12/17 Ahsas vs. Ganeshi Lal & Ors.
is directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the petitioner with State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, against account of petitioner within a period of 30 days from today, failing which respondent no.3 shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
28. The respondent no.3 is directed to credit the amount directly to the MACT account of State Bank of India, District Court, Saket branch.
Details of the bank i.e. IFSC code etc. have been provided to the ld. counsel for the insurance company.
29. 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 FUND PARKING A/c 35195787436 IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir alongwith calculation of interest and to the Counsel for the petitioners.
30. MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE'(MCTAP)
31. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the State Bank of India, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, is directed to keep the awarded amount in the "fixed deposit / saving account'' in the following manner :
1. The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the petitioner/claimant by Automatic Credit of interest of their saving bank account with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
2. Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to Petition No. :358/18 Page No.13/17 Ahsas vs. Ganeshi Lal & Ors.
petitioner/claimant after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimants / petitioners to facilitate identity.
3. No cheque book be issued to petitioner/claimant without the permission of this Court.
4. The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the petitioner/claimant alongwith the photocopy of the FDR's .
5. The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to petitioner/claimant at the end of the fixed deposit period.
6. No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court.
7. Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court.
8. On the request of petitioner/claimant, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience.
9. Petitioner/claimant shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, New Delhi.
10. The bank is also directed to get the nomination form filled by the claimant at the time of preparation of FDRs.
11. The bank is also directed to keep the money received from the respondents in an FDR in the name of the bank till the FDRs are prepared in the name of the claimant, so that the benefit of better interest may be given to the claimant for the said period.
12. The Manager, State Bank of India, District Court Saket branch is directed not to release any amount to the petitioner from this branch, unless ordered by the Tribunal in terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 and CM Applications No. 32859/2017, 4112541127/2017 in Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. dated 09.03.2018. It is made clear that the amount including the maturity amount of the FDRs shall be released to the petitioner through RTGS/NEFT directly in the personal bank account of the petitioner of the bank nearest to his place of residence, the details of which have been given by the petitioner to the Tribunal and same details shall be given by them to the Manager SBI, District Court Saket branch.
DIRECTIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT No. 3• The Respondent no.3 is directed to file the compliance report of its having Petition No. :358/18 Page No.14/17 Ahsas vs. Ganeshi Lal & Ors.
deposited the awarded amount with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this Tribunal within a period of 30 days from today.
• The Respondent no.3 is directed to furnish a copy of this award alongwith the cheque of the awarded amount to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, so as to facilitate the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch to have the identification of the claimant/petitioner in whose favour the award has been passed.
• The Respondent no.3 shall intimate the claimant/petitioner about its having deposited the cheque in favor of the claimant in terms of the award, at the address of the claimant mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate him to withdraw the same.
• Copy of this award / judgment be given to the claimant who is directed to furnish the same to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch for necessary compliance after his having received the notice of the deposit of awarded amount by the respondent no.3.
• Copy of this Award / Judgment be given to the parties for compliance. • The case is now fixed for compliance by the respondent no.3 for 25.01.2021.
FORM IVB SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE OF AHSAS TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1) Date of accident : 22.06.2018
2) Name of the injured : Ahsas
3) Age of the injured : 19 years
4) Occupation of the injured :
5) Income of the injured : Rs. 20,000/ per month have been taken by this Court considering his professional qualification.
6) Nature of injury : Grievous 7) Whether any permanent disability? : Yes Petition No. :358/18 Page No.15/17 Ahsas vs. Ganeshi Lal & Ors. Computation of Compensation S. Heads Awarded by the No. Claims Tribunal 1 Pecuniary Loss : i Expenditure on treatment Rs.48,073/ ii Expenditure on special diet, conveyance and Rs.50,000/ attendant Iii Loss of earning capacity 30% iv Loss of Study Rs.100,000/ v Any other loss which may require any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life. 2 NonPecuniary Loss : i Compensation for mental and physical shock ii Pain and suffering Rs. 1,00,000/ iii Loss of amenities Rs.1,00,000/ iv Cost of Artificial Limb Rs.480,000/ v Loss of marriage prospects vi Compensation on account of permanent Rs.18,14,400/ disability 3 Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity : (i) Percentage of disability assessed and nature 50%, permanent of disability as permanent or temporary (iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in 30% relation to disability 4 TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.26,92,473/ 5 INTEREST AWARDED 8% 6 Total amount of interest Rs.5,13,365/ 7 Total amount including interest Rs.32,05,838/ 8 Award amount released Rs.12,05,838 Petition No. :358/18 Page No.16/17 Ahsas vs. Ganeshi Lal & Ors. 9 Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.20,00,000/ 10 Mode of disbursement of the award amount to Some amount is the claimant(s) released in cash and some amount is kept in FD. 11 Next date for compliance of the award. 25.01.2021 Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL KUMAR Pronounced through Cisco Webex KUMAR GARG Video Conferencing Date: 2020.12.23 GARG 16:42:54 +0530 on 22nd December, 2020 (ATUL KUMAR GARG) Presiding Officer : MACT South Distt. : Saket Courts New Delhi Petition No. :358/18 Page No.17/17