Delhi District Court
Chandan Kumar vs Krishan Kant Gaur on 7 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SHRI TARUN YOGESH
LD. PO-MACT-01, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
MACT No.758/2017
CNR No. DLSW01-007314-2017
FIR No. 207/2017
PS Vikas Puri
In the matter of :
1) Sh. Chandan Kumar
S/o Sh. Suresh Prashad
R/o C-1/208, Madhu Vihar,
New Delhi. .... (Petitioner)
Versus
1) Sh. Krishan Kant Gaur
S/o Sh. Kailash Kant Gaur
R/o A-162, Gali No.5,
Om Vihar, Phase-5,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi. .... (Driver-cum-owner)
2) TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.
.... (Insurance company)
... Respondents
Date of Institution : 05.07.2017
Date of judgment : 07.01.2025
FORM - V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
MACT No.758/2017 Chandan Kumar Vs. Krishan Kant Gaur & Anr. Page 1 of 24
1. Date of the accident 30.04.2017
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the Not Available
investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal
(Clause 2)
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the Not Available
investigating officer to the insurance company.
(Clause 2)
4. Date of filing of Report under section 173 Cr.P.C. Not Available
before the Metropolitan Magistrate (Clause 10)
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information 05.07.2017
Report (DAR) by the investigating Officer before
Claims Tribunal (Clause 10)
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance 05.07.2017
Company (Clause 11)
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant(s). 05.07.2017
(Clause 11)
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? Yes
(Clause 16)
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed N/A
later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the documents Yes
filed with DAR? (Clause 4)
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the No
part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether
any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by N/A
the insurance Company (Clause 20)
13. Name, address and contact number of the N/A
Designated Officer of the Insurance Company.
(Clause 20)
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Insurance Not Available
Company submitted his report within 30 days of
the DAR? (Clause 20)
15. Whether the insurance company admitted the Not Available
liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of
the insurance company fairly computed the
compensation in accordance with law. (Clause
MACT No.758/2017 Chandan Kumar Vs. Krishan Kant Gaur & Anr. Page 2 of 24
23)
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the N/A
part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether any action/direction
warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer of No
the Insurance Company. (Clause 24)
18. Date of the Award 07.01.2025
19. Whether the award was passed with the consent Yes
of the parties? (Clause 22)
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes
saving bank account(s) near their place of
residence? (Clause 18)
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed 10.09.2018
to open saving bank account (s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN Card and Aadhar
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(s). (Clause 18)
22. Date on which the claimant (s) produced the 01.07.2019
passbook of their saving bank account near the
place of their residence along with the
endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
(Clause 18)
23. Permanent Residential Address of the Claimant(s) R/o C-1/208,
(Clause 27) Madhu Vihar,
New Delhi
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the S.B Account No.
claimant(s) and the address of the bank with IFSC 7697000100037622
Code (Clause 27) with Punjab
National Bank,
Ramphal Chowk,
Palam, New Delhi
(IFSC Code:
PUNB0769700)
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank account(s) Yes
is near his/her place of residence? (Clause 27)
MACT No.758/2017 Chandan Kumar Vs. Krishan Kant Gaur & Anr. Page 3 of 24
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the Yes
time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their
financial condition? (Clause 27)
27. Account number, MICR number IFSC Code, Account No.
name and branch of the bank of the Claims 42709452600 at
Tribunal in which the award amount is to be SBI Dwarka,
deposited/transferred. Sector-10, Dwarka
Courts Complex,
IFSC Code:
SBIN0011566 &
MICR No.
110002483.
AWAR D
Preface
1. Detailed Accident Report (DAR) seeking compensation for
bodily injury has been filed along with copy of Final Report
under section 279/338 IPC & 3/181 of M.V. Act.
Background
2. Succinctly stated, Chandan Kumar returning home from District Centre Janakpuri Western Mall along with children riding the pillion of Honda Shine Motorcycle No.DL-9SBD-6967 driven by his wife Smt. Sanju sustained grievous injury in motor vehicle accident near Pillar No.614, Main Najafgarh Road towards Uttam Nagar on 30.04.2017 at around 9:30 pm after their motorcycle was hit from behind by offending Scooty No.DL-4SCK-7953.
3. FIR No.207/2017 under section 279/337 IPC PS Vikas Puri was registered on 03.05.2017 and respondent/Krishan Kant Gaur (driver-cum-owner) was formally arrested and released on police bail. Original RC and photocopy of Insurance Policy produced by respondent were verified from concerned authorities and MACT No.758/2017 Chandan Kumar Vs. Krishan Kant Gaur & Anr. Page 4 of 24 offence under section 338 IPC was added on the basis of final opinion of grievous injury. Offence under section 3/181 of M.V. Act was also added after respondent failed to produce valid and effective licence for driving the Scooty. IO, thereafter, concluded investigation and prepared DAR which was filed in Court along with copy of Final Report under section 279/338 IPC & 3/181 of M.V. Act.
Defence
4. R1/Krishan Kant Gaur (driver-cum-owner) has joined procedings but did not file any reply.
5. R2/TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. on its part has filed reply admitting Policy No. 064001/0186090162/ 000000/00 of TVS Jupiter Scooty No.DL-4SCK-7953 insured in the name of Krishan Kant Gaur from 21.06.2016 to 20.07.2017 besides reserving its right to raise defence under section 149 (2)(a)(ii) of M.V. Act in the absence of valid and effective licence along with all defences under section 170 of M.V. Act in case the driver and owner would fail to contest the claim.
Inquiry
6. Following issues were settled on 11.12.2017 and matter was posted for petitioner evidence.
i. Whether Chandan Kumar sustained grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident dtd. 30.4.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle (Motor cycle) no.DL4SCK-7953 being driven and owned by respondent no.1 Krishan Kant Gaur and insured by respondent no.2/TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. ? OPP ii. Whether the petitioner in the above mentioned case is entitled to claim MACT No.758/2017 Chandan Kumar Vs. Krishan Kant Gaur & Anr. Page 5 of 24 compensation, if so, what amount and from whom? OPP iii. Relief.
7. PW-1 Chandan Kumar in paras 1 to 5 of affidavit Ex.PW- 1/A has inter alia deposed about - (i) fracture and multiple grievous injuries sustained in road accident on 30.04.2017 at around 9:30 pm after motorcycle driven by his wife Smt. Sanju was hit from behind by offending Scooty No.DL-4SCK-7953 near Pillar No. 614, Main Najafgarh Road towards Uttam Nagar, New Delhi; (ii) treatment at DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar, Delhi, Raman Orthocare & Acharya Sree Bhikshu Government Hospital, Moti Nagar, Delhi where he remained admitted to 11.05.2017 to 15.05.2017; (iii) expenses incurred on medicine, treatment, conveyance, special diet, attendant charges, physiotherapy & further expenses likely to be incurred on future treatment; (iv) monthly income Rs.63,188/- by doing business; AND (v) general and special damages suffered on account of injuries sustained in road accident. PW-1 has also relied upon following documents referred in his affidavit:
i. Treatment Record & Bills - Ex.PW-1/1 (Colly.);
ii. Copy of Aadhar Card - Ex.PW-1/2;
iii. Copy of Income Tax Return of AY 2016-17 - Ex.PW-1/3;
iv. DAR - ExPW-1/4.
8. His cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for insurance company has been recorded and petitioner's evidence was closed on 10.09.2018.
9. R1/Krishan Kant Gaur (driver-cum-owner) has neither availed his right to cross-examine injured nor led any evidence.MACT No.758/2017 Chandan Kumar Vs. Krishan Kant Gaur & Anr. Page 6 of 24
10. R2W1 Sh. Jarrar Ahmad, Officer Legal, TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. has disputed liability of insurance company to pay compensation in the absence of valid and effective licence held by the driver by relying upon following documents:
i. Letter authorizing him to depose as witness - Ex.R2W1/1;
ii. Terms & Conditions of the Policy w.r.t. valid and effective driving licence - Ex.R2W1/2;
iii. Notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC calling upon respondent Krishan Kant Gaur (driver-cum-owner) to produce original driving licence and policy - Ex.R2W1/3; iv. Copy of Postal Receipt - Ex.R2W1/4;
v. Tracking Report - Ex.R2W1/5.
11. Sh. Ram Kumar, Record Clerk, DDU Hospital also examined as R2W1 has produced MLC No.3039/17 of injured Chandan Kumar prepared on 03.05.2017 and referred to its copy as Ex.R2W1/A.
12. No other witness has been examined and respondents' evidence was closed on 16.12.2019. Discussion and Conclusion
13. Advocate Sh. R.K. Singh for injured and Advocate Shri Pradeep Sehrawat for TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. have addressed their submissions.
14. I have carefully perused pleadings and evidence adduced on judicial file. My issue wise finding is recorded below:
15. Issue No.1:
Whether Chandan Kumar sustained grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident dtd. 30.4.2017 due to rash and MACT No.758/2017 Chandan Kumar Vs. Krishan Kant Gaur & Anr. Page 7 of 24 negligent driving of vehicle (Motor cycle) no.DL4SCK-7953 being driven and owned by respondent no.1 Krishan Kant Gaur and insured by respondent no.2/TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. ? OPP
16. PW-1 Chandan Kumar in para 1 of affidavit Ex.PW-1/A has deposed that he along with two children was riding the pillion of motorcycle driven by his wife Smt. Sanju on their way to home from District Centre Janakpuri Western Mall on 30.04.2017 at about 9:30 pm and the motorcycle was hit from behind by offending Scooty No.DL-4SCK-7953 near Pillar No.614, Main Najafgarh Road towards Uttam Nagar, New Delhi as a result of which he fell down on the road and suffered fracture and other multiple grievous injuries all over the body.
17. PW-1 during cross-examination by Ld. counsel for insurance company has reiterated that motorcycle was being driven by his wife who was having valid driving licence on the day of accident and denied suggestion that no such accident had taken place.
18. Following portion of cross-examination of injured Chandan Kumar being relevant is extracted below:
"It is wrong to suggest that no accident took place on 30.04.2017 or that I had not told anything to the doctor regarding the accident which allegedly took place on 30.04.2017 and that is the reason the said documents of 30.04.2017 of DDU Hospital does not have been mention about the accidental injuries."MACT No.758/2017 Chandan Kumar Vs. Krishan Kant Gaur & Anr. Page 8 of 24
19. Treatment Record of injured Chandan Kumar at DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar, New Delhi bearing Emr. Regn No.113155 dated 03.05.2017 read with MLC No.3039/17 proved as Ex.R2W1/A would reveal that injured having approached the hospital alleging Road Traffic Accident on 30.04.2017 was diagnosed with Pain & Swelling over Left Upper Arm and Shoulder and was referred to Ortho for X-ray of Left Arm & Shoulder. In between, he visited Raman Orthocare on 01.05.2017 and thereafter remained admitted at Acharya Sree Bhikshu Government Hospital, Moti Nagar, New Delhi from 11.05.2017 to 15.05.2017 where he was diagnosed with Fracture of Proximal Humerus of the Left Arm and underwent ORIF & K-wire Fixation done on 12.05.2017.
20. Bodily injury sustained in motor vehicle accident cannot be disputed on the ground of delay in preparing MLC on 03.05.2017, more so, considering the fact that injured along with wife Smt. Sanju and daughter Ananya had visited the hospital on 30.04.2017 at about 09:56:49 pm as revealed from Emr. Regn. Nos.109927 to 109930 of DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar, New Delhi.
21. Respondent/Krishan Kant Gaur (driver-cum-owner) despite being indicted of rash and negligent driving of Scooty resulting in bodily injury sustained in motor vehicle accident on 30.04.2017 has not entered witness-box to rebut the allegation and adverse inference is required to be raised against the driver as per the dicta of Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Durdadshya Kumar Samal & Ors. 1987 SCC Online Ori. 57 AND Cholamandalam MS General MACT No.758/2017 Chandan Kumar Vs. Krishan Kant Gaur & Anr. Page 9 of 24 Insurance Co. Vs. Smt. Kamlesh & Ors. decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 11th November, 2008.
22. Moreover, it is well settled law that negligence of the driver in case of road traffic accident is required to be established on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not apply to claim petitions under Motor Vehicle Act as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para 15 of Bimla Devi & Ors. Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors (2009) 13 SCC 530.
23. Following observations in para 15 of aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court being relevant are extracted herein below :
"15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a praticular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimaints were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied...."
24. Similar observation has been recorded by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in para 12 of its judgment delivered in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Rana & Ors. 2007 SCC Online Del 1700 holding that proceedings under Motor Vehicle Act are not akin to proceeding in a civil suit hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed and FIR against the driver along with criminal record of the case showing completion of investigation by the police leading to Final Report are MACT No.758/2017 Chandan Kumar Vs. Krishan Kant Gaur & Anr. Page 10 of 24 sufficient proof to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent.
25. FINDING : Issue No.1 is therefore decided in favour of Chandan Kumar by holding that grievous injury sustained in road accident on 30.04.2017 was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Scooty No.DL-4SCK-7953 by R1/Krishan Kant Gaur (driver-cum-owner) which vehicle was insured with R2/TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.
26. Issue No.2 Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom? ... OPP
27. Treatment Record Ex.PW-1/1 (Colly.) read with MLC No.3039/17 would reveal that injured Chandan Kumar was diagnosed with Pain & Swelling over Left Upper Arm and Shoulder and was referred to Ortho for X-ray of Left Arm & Shoulder. In between, he visited Raman Orthocare on 01.05.2017 and thereafter remained admitted at Acharya Sree Bhikshu Government Hospital, Moti Nagar, New Delhi from 11.05.2017 to 15.05.2017 where he was diagnosed with Fracture of Proximal Humerus of the Left Arm and underwent ORIF & K-wire Fixation done on 12.05.2017. He is, therefore, entitled to be compensated for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage consequent to fracture and grievous injury sustained in motor vehicle accident. Quantum of compensation payable to injured has to be assessed separately under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads.
28. At the outset, it has to be borne in mind that compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be MACT No.758/2017 Chandan Kumar Vs. Krishan Kant Gaur & Anr. Page 11 of 24 niggardly and Courts & Tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation which should be just. What would be "just" compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Helen C. Rebello Vs. Maharasthra SRTC, 1999 (1) SCC 90.
29. Following para of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (1995) 1 SCC 551 being relevant is extracted herein below:
"9. Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be MACT No.758/2017 Chandan Kumar Vs. Krishan Kant Gaur & Anr. Page 12 of 24 able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life."
30. Heads of compensation under pecuniary and non- pecuniary damages have been further explained by Hon'ble Apex Court in para 6 of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 343 which reads as under:
"6. 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).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under MACT No.758/2017 Chandan Kumar Vs. Krishan Kant Gaur & Anr. Page 13 of 24 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.
NATURE AND EXTENT OF INJURIES
31. MLC No.3039/17 of injured prepared at DDU Hospital mentions Pain & Swelling over Left Upper Arm and Shoulder whereas Discharge Summary of Acharya Sree Bhikshu Government Hospital, Moti Nagar, New Delhi reveals that injured Chandan Kumar having remained admitted at the hospital from 11.05.2017 to 15.05.2017 was diagnosed with Fracture of Proximal Humerus of the Left Arm and underwent ORIF & K- wire Fixation done on 12.05.2017.
32. No other document has been filed on record or relied in evidence to show any other injury.
MEDICINES AND TREATMENT
33. Though a sum of Rs.50,000/- is stated to have been incurred on treatment, however, no bill of aforesaid amount has been adduced in evidence. Aggregate sum of Rs.4,400/- (Rupees Four Thousand Four Hundred Fifty only) against Bills/Receipt of
(i) Raman Orthocare; (ii) Janta X-ray Clinic Pvt. Ltd. & (iii) Dr. Nidhi's Physiotherapy Clinic is awarded to injured Chandan Kumar towards expenses incurred on Medicine & Treatment. CONVEYANCE AND SPECIAL DIET MACT No.758/2017 Chandan Kumar Vs. Krishan Kant Gaur & Anr. Page 14 of 24
34. PW-1 Chandan Kumar in para 2 of affidavit Ex.PW-1/A has deposed to have spent Rs.30,000/- each on conveyance and special diet. However, no bill/document verifying such expenses has been adduced in evidence. Petitioner having sustained injury on 30.04.2017 was examined at DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar, Delhi on 03.05.2017 and remained admitted at Acharya Sree Bhikshu Government Hospital, Moti Nagar, New Delhi from 11.05.2017 to 15.05.2017 where he underwent ORIF & K-wire Fixation done on 12.05.2017. He continued to visit the hospital for Follow-up Treatment up to 30.06.2017 and also visited Dr. Nidhi's Physiotherapy Clinic for undergoing 21 days Exercise Therapy up to 04.08.2017. It is assumed that injured might have used private vehicle/hired taxi for undergoing treatment up to 04.08.2017. A sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) is therefore awarded towards conveyance. Similarly, injured might have needed special diet for full and complete recovery from Fracture of Proximal Humerus of the Left Arm. Another sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) is therefore awarded towards special diet on conservative estimate. ATTENDANT CHARGES
35. PW-1 Chandan Kumar in para 2 of affidavit Ex.PW-1/A has deposed to have spent Rs.10,000/- per month on attendant charges and physiotherapy. It is assumed that injured Chandan Kumar having suffered fracture injury must have needed an attendant to assist him for at least two months even if such gratuitous service was rendered by some or the other of his family/relatives. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. Vs. Kumari Lalita 1982 SCC MACT No.758/2017 Chandan Kumar Vs. Krishan Kant Gaur & Anr. Page 15 of 24 Online Delhi 123 has held that the victim cannot be deprived of compensation towards gratuitous service rendered by some of his family member. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of material on record, injured Chandan Kumar is awarded Rs.8,000/- x 2 = Rs.16,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Thousand only) towards attendant charges. LOSS OF INCOME
36. PW-1 Chandan Kumar in para 3 of affidavit Ex.PW-1/A has deposed to be earning Rs.63,188/- per month by doing business and relied upon Income Tax Return of AY 2016-17 mentioning Gross Total Income Rs.3,52,620/-. Monthly income of injured is taken as Rs.29,385/- on the basis of ITR for AY 2016-17. Having suffered Fracture of Proximal Humerus of the Left Arm, it is assumed that injured Chandan Kumar would have taken around two months to recover from injuries sustained in road accident. Injured Chandan Kumar is, therefore, awarded Rs.29,385/- x 02 months = Rs.58,770/- (Rupees Fifty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy only) towards loss of earning in course of treatment & recovery from fracture injury. PAIN AND SUFFERING
37. Following factors are to be taken into account for assessing compensation under the head - Pain and Suffering:
i. Nature of injury ii. Parts of body where injuries occurred iii. Surgeries, if any iv. Confinement in hospital v. Duration of the treatment MACT No.758/2017 Chandan Kumar Vs. Krishan Kant Gaur & Anr. Page 16 of 24
38. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para 9 of Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2010) 10 SCC 254 has observed that whole idea in case of assessment of all damages for personal injury is to put the claimant in the same position as he was insofar as money can. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that the victim has done no wrong; he has suffered at the hands of wrongdoer and Court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered.
39. Injured Chandan Kumar having suffered bodily injury in Motor Vehicle Accident on 30.04.2017 remained admitted at Acharya Sree Bhikshu Government Hospital, Moti Nagar, New Delhi from 11.05.2017 to 15.05.2017 where he was diagnosed with Fracture of Proximal Humerus of the Left Arm and underwent ORIF & K-wire Fixation done on 12.05.2017. Considering the nature of injury, hospitalization and duration of treatment, it would be apposite to award him a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) towards Pain & Suffering.
LOSS OF AMENITIES, LOSS OF EXPECTATION OF LIFE, LOSS OF FUTURE EARNINIG/PROSPECTS AND FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES
40. No compensation for (i) loss of future earning/prospects AND (ii) non pecuniary damages including loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life is required to be assessed in the absence of serious injury resulting in permanent physical disability.
MACT No.758/2017 Chandan Kumar Vs. Krishan Kant Gaur & Anr. Page 17 of 2441. Break-up of compensation awarded to injured under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads is mentioned below in tabulated form:
S. No. HEADS AMOUNT (in
Rupees)
1. Medicines & Treatment Rs.4,400/-
2. Conveyance Rs.15,000/-
3. Special Diet Rs.20,000/-
4. Attendant Charges (Rs.8000 x 2) Rs.16,000/-
5. Loss of Income (Rs.29,385 x 2) Rs.58,770/-
6. Pain & Suffering Rs.30,000/-
7. Loss of amenities of life -
8. Mental & Physical Shock -
9 Loss of future income/prospect -
TOTAL Rs.1,44,170/-
rounded off to
Rs.1,44,200/-
INTEREST
42. There is nothing on record to justify withholding interest on the award amount. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it will be just and proper to award interest @ 7.5% per annum on the award amount as granted by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat Johar & Anr. (2019) 15 SCC
260. Injured Chandan Kumar is therefore awarded interest @ 7.5% per annum upon award amount Rs.1,44,200/- from the date of filing of DAR on 05.07.2017 till notice of deposit under Order XXI Rule 1 CPC to petitioner/counsel.
LIABILITY MACT No.758/2017 Chandan Kumar Vs. Krishan Kant Gaur & Anr. Page 18 of 24
43. Advocate Shri Pradeep Sehrawat for TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. has urged for granting right to recover compensation amount with interest from respondent (driver-cum- owner) by adverting to testimony of R2W1 Sh. Jarrar Ahmad who has referred to terms and conditions of the policy w.r.t. valid and effective driving licence read with Notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC calling upon respondent Krishan Kant Gaur to produce original driving licence and policy.
44. R1/Krishan Kant Gaur having failed to produce valid and effective driving licence despite Notice Under Order XII Rule 8 CPC has neither disputed testimony of R2W1 nor led evidence affirming valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle on the date of accident. Adverse inference is therefore required to be drawn against the driver-cum-owner in terms of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Kumar & Ors. ILR (2007) II Delhi 733.
45. R1/Krishan Kant Gaur being principal tortfeasor driving Scooty No.DL-4SCK-7953 in rash and negligent manner is liable to compensate injured for pecuniary and non pecuniary damage consequent to fracture/bodily injury sustained in motor vehicle accident. However, since offending Scooty was insured against Third Party Risk so, R2/TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. being statutorily liable under Section 149 (1) of M. V. Act shall pay compensation along with interest to injured and shall be entitled to recover the same from driver-cum-owner in the absence of valid and effective driving licence held by R1/Krishan Kant Gaur.
MACT No.758/2017 Chandan Kumar Vs. Krishan Kant Gaur & Anr. Page 19 of 2446. FINDING : Issue No.2 is decided accordingly by holding that R2/TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. shall pay the award amount with interest to injured Chandan Kumar and shall be entitled to recover the same from R1/Krishan Kant Gaur (driver-cum-owner).
47. FORM-IVB SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 30.04.2017
2. Name of the injured : Chandan Kumar
3. Age of the injured : 31 years (at the time of accident)
4. Occupation of the injured : Private Job
5. Income of the injured : Rs.29,385/- per month as per ITR of AY 2016-17
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken : DDU Hospital, New Delhi, Raman Orthocare & Acharya Sree Bhikshu Government Hospital
8. Period of hospitalization : 11.05.2017 to 15.05.217 at Acharya Sree Bhikshu Government Hospital, Moti Nagar, New Delhi
9. Whether any permanent : No. disability? If yes, give details.
10. Computation of Compensation MACT No.758/2017 Chandan Kumar Vs. Krishan Kant Gaur & Anr. Page 20 of 24 S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs.4,400/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.15,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs.20,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs.16,000/-
(8,000x2)
(v) Cost of artificial limb -
(vi) Loss of earning capacity -
(vii) Loss of income Rs.58,770/-
(viii) Any other loss which may require -
any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of her life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and -
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life -
(iv) Disfiguration -
(v) Loss of marriage prospects -
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, -
hardship, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed -
and nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities of loss of -
expectation of life span on account MACT No.758/2017 Chandan Kumar Vs. Krishan Kant Gaur & Anr. Page 21 of 24 of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning -
capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future Income - (Income x -
% Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.1,44,170/-
rounded off to Rs.1,44,200/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED
16. Interest amount up to the date of @ 7.5% p.a. from award the date of filing of DAR i.e. 05.07.2017 till notice of deposit under Order XXI Rule 1 CPC
17. Total amount including interest Rs.1,44,200/- + interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the DAR i.e. 05.07.2017 till notice of deposit under Order XXI Rule 1 CPC
18. Award amont released As per table given below
19. Award amount kept in FDRs As per table given below
20. Mode of disbursement of the By credit in the award amount to the claimant(s). SB Account of the injured 21 Next Date for compliance of the 27.02.2025 award.
48. The award amount shall be deposited by R2/TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. in Account No.42709452600 of MACT No.758/2017 Chandan Kumar Vs. Krishan Kant Gaur & Anr. Page 22 of 24 MACT, South West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi at State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi (IFSC Code SBIN0011566 and MICR Code 110002483) through RTGS/NEFT/IMPS within 30 days of award as per section 168(3) of M.V. Act under intimation to the Nazir of this court with proof of notice to the claimant/injured and his counsel.
49. Statement of injured Chandan Kumar regarding financial status, needs and liabilities has been recorded. In view of the said statement and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the award amount shall be disbursed in following manner:-
S. Name Status Amount of Award Release Amou No Amount nt of FDR
1. Chandan Injured Rs.1,44,200/- + Rs.1,44,200/- Nil Kumar interest @ 7.5% - with p.a. from the date proportionate of filing of the interest in DAR i.e. MACT 05.07.2017 till Claims SB notice of deposit Account of under Order XXI injured Rule 1 CPC TOTAL Rs.1,44,200/- Rs.1,44,200/
50. Injured Chandan Kumar has mentioned details of SB Account No.7697000100037622 with Punjab National Bank, Ramphal Chowk, Palam, New Delhi (IFSC Code:
PUNB0769700) in his statement recorded on 01.07.2019 and it is requested that cash amount may be transferred in the said SB Account.MACT No.758/2017 Chandan Kumar Vs. Krishan Kant Gaur & Anr. Page 23 of 24
51. Accordingly, Manager, State Bank of India, District Courts Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi is directed to transfer Rs.1,44,200/- with proportionate interest in SB Account No.7697000100037622 with Punjab National Bank, Ramphal Chowk, Palam, New Delhi (IFSC Code: PUNB0769700).
52. R2/TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. shall inform injured/counsel through registered post regarding award amount being transferred/ deposited in MACT Account so as to facilitate the injured to withdraw the amount from MACT Account.
53. Copy of this award be sent to Manager, SBI, District Courts Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi and Punjab National Bank, Ramphal Chowk, Palam, New Delhi (IFSC Code:
PUNB0769700) for information /compliance.
54. Dasti copy of award be given to Ld. Counsel for injured and Ld. Counsel for respondents.
55. Ahlmad is directed to prepare separate miscellaneous file to be listed on 27.02.2025 for filing compliance report.
56. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court TARUN Digitally signed by TARUN YOGESH on 07.01.2025 YOGESH Date: 2025.01.09 14:26:47 +0530 (Tarun Yogesh) PO, MACT-01, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi MACT No.758/2017 Chandan Kumar Vs. Krishan Kant Gaur & Anr. Page 24 of 24