Nandan S/O Ishwar Dutt vs Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd & ... on 20 October, 2018

[Cites 21, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Nandan S/O Ishwar Dutt vs Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd & ... on 20 October, 2018

                 Sh. G. N. Pandey,  Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) 
                                  Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.




                        In the Court of Sh. G. N Pandey 
                  Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Pilot Court) 
                      Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.                                    

                                    DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18

                                                    DAR No. 84/18

IN THE MATTER OF :

                  Nandan S/o Ishwar Dutt
                  R/o E60, Gali No 9, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi. 

                                                              ............ Petitioner

                                         V E R S U S

         1.       Ram Murat S/o Ram Achal 
                  R/o H. No. 24/16, Trilok Puri,
                  Chilla Saroda Khadar East, Delhi. 

         2.       United India Insurance Co. Limited. 

                                                              ........ Respondents

Date of Institution of petition : 28.03.2018 Date of Judgment/Order : 20.10.2018 DAR No. 85/18 IN THE MATTER OF : (1) Smt. Manisha Mishra W/o Late Vivek Mishra ( aged about 23 years) (2) Baby Preeti D/o Late Vivek Mishra DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18 1 of 43 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.



                  ( aged about 3 years )

         (3)      Master Vikas 
                  S/o Late Vivek Mishra
                  ( aged about 1 years)

petitioner No. 23 are minor being represented through their mother/ natural guardian Smt. Manisha Mishra (4) Smt. Urmila W/o Sh. Ram Kripal ( Aged about 60 years) (5) Ram Kripal S/o Late Ram Naresh Aged about 67 years (6) Ms. Pooja D/o Ram Kripal Aged about 18 years All residents of Gram Badgayen, thana Khas, PS Harraiya, Distt. Basti, UP ............ Petitioners V E R S U S

1. Ram Murat S/o Ram Achal R/o H. No. 24/16, Trilok Puri, Delhi.

2. United India Insurance Co. Limited.

Office at: H. No. 214, Main Road, Khichripur Village, East, Delhi.

........ Respondents Date of Institution of petition : 28.03.2018 Date of Judgment/Order : 20.10.2018 DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18 2 of 43 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

DAR No. 86/18

IN THE MATTER OF : Ravi S/o Ram Gopal R/o 4 ½ Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi.

............ Petitioner V E R S U S

1. Ram Murat S/o Ram Achal R/o H. No. 24/16, Trilok Puri, Chilla Saroda Khadar East, Delhi.

2. United India Insurance Co. Limited.

........ Respondents Date of Institution of petition : 28.03.2018 Date of Judgment/Order : 20.10.2018 A W A R D:

1. By this order, I shall dispose off three connected DAR petitions bearing DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18 for grant of compensation.

2. Brief facts of all three cases are that on 26.01.2018 at about 11:42 PM, injured alongwith his friend were going to house at West Vinod Nagar through motorcycle No. DL 3 TCZ 1499 by driving in a simple manner by following the rules of traffic. When they reached at 4 th Pushta, suddenly the driver of the truck No. HR 55 T 2140 came from the side of Nanaksar in wrong side which was being driven by its driver at a very high speed, rashly and negligently hit the injured person. Due to which, they fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries;

DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18 3 of 43 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

immediately taken to Trauma Centre Lok Nayak Hospital, Delhi where MLC was prepared by the doctors. Injured persons were admitted in the hospital. During the treatment, Vivek died. Regarding accident, FIR No. 28/18 was registered for offence U/s 279/337/304A IPC at PS Sonia Vihar. The respondents in all the petitions are common.

3. The respondent No. 1 filed WS denying the averments made in the petition contending that this petition is not maintainable and there is no cause of action for filing of the same. As contended, injured/ deceased had himself caused the said accident; the motorcycle was driving by the injured alongwith two other pillion rider in negligent manner and very rash. It is further contended that vehicle of the respondent No. 1 is covered with the insurance company. While denying rest of the claim of the petitioner in the petition, the respondent No. 1 prayed to dismiss the petition.

The respondent No. 2 / insurance company filed WS of the claim petition contending that company had issued the insurance policy No. 0417843117P114237716 valid for the period from 07.01.2018 to 06.01.2019 for vehicle No. HR 55 T 2140 in the name of Sh. Ram Murat.

4. In view of the records, following issues were framed on 17.04.2018 in petition No. 84/18:

1. Whether petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR 55 T 2140 at Main Pusta Road, 4th Pushta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi by respondent No. 1 on 26.01.2018 within the jurisdiction of PS Sonia Vihar ?OPP

2. Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18 4 of 43 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

3. Relief.

5. Following issues were framed in petition No. 85/18 on 17.04.2018 :

1. Whether deceased Vivek Mishra died on account of injuries sustained in accident took place on 26.01.2018 at about 11:42 PM at main pusta road, 4 th Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi of PS sonia Vihar, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Sonia Vihar due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No. HR 55 T 2140 by respondent No. 1. ?OPP

2. Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP

3. Relief.

6. Following issues were framed in petition No. 86/18 on 17.04.2018:

2. Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP

3. Relief.

The evidence were recorded in the matter for disposal of the petitions: Evidence in DAR Petition No. 84/18

7. Injured filed his affidavit by way of evidence Ex. PW 1/1 and DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18 5 of 43 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

examined himself as PW1. PE was thereafter closed.

8. Respondent No. 3 examined respondent No. 1 as R3W1 deposed that he is R1 in the case. On 26.01.2018 he was going from side of Nanaksar to Chauhan Patti on pusta road. When he reached 4 ½ pusta the petitioner came from side road of the colony and came on main road and as he came suddenly in front of his vehicle truck, the accident was caused to him and he suffered injuries. He stopped at the spot and remained there till police came there. Police took the injured to the hospital. He was taken to the PS and case was registered.

Respondent No. 3 examined SI Rajender Prasad, No. 35002, MACT Cell, NE, Delhi as R3W2 deposed that he is the IO in case FIR No. 28/18 dated 27.01.2018 PS Sonia Vihar and after investigation filed the DAR and Chargesheet before the Tribunal. Whatever documents were submitted by the R1 and R2 were filed with the DAR after verification. He has not verified the DL of the deceased as no such particulars available with him. He cannot say whether the national permit authorisation for the offending vehicle truck No. HR55T2140 was valid at the time of accident. As per basic goods permit it was valid till 2019.

Respondent No. 3 examined the witness i.e. Ms. Reema Prabha, Asstt. Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd as R3W4 appeared with the computerized certified copy of the insurance policy bearing no. 0417843117P114237716 for the period 07.01.2018 to 06.01.2019, insuring vehicle no. HR55T2140 in the name of Sh. Ram Murat. The certified copy of the policy Ex.R3W4/1 (Colly. 2 pages). The said policy contains the permit clause mark X to X A notice to produce under order 12 Rule 8 CPC was issued by counsel for production of the documents and copy of same Ex.R3W4/2.

DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18 6 of 43 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

The endorsement of the counsel for R1 of having receipt the notice in the court on 28.07.2018 at point - A on Ex.R3W4/2. The original postal registration slip Ex.R3W4/3.

The downloaded copy of the transaction details with regard to the National Permit Authorization of insured vehicle no. HR55T2140 Ex.R3W4/4. The certificate under section 65B of Evidence Act Ex.R3W4/5. As per the record of the office of the Secretary, RTA, Gurgaon the insured vehicle was not having a valid national permit authorization certificate as on date of accident i.e. 26.01.2018.

The condition mark X to X of Ex.R3W4/1 has been violated and hence the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured Ram Murat.

Respondent No. 3 examined the witness i.e. Sh. Manish Kumar, Transport Inspector, office of Secretary RTA, Gurgaon, Haryana as R3W5 appeared with the summoned record i.e. original permit register showing the issuance of NP Authorization certificate for vehicle No. HR 55 T 2140 , the relevant pages Ex. R3W5/1( Colly5 pages), he has also seen the document Ex. R3W4/4 which has been shown to him from court file and he state that same reflects the correct record and matches with records. As per record, the vehicle No. HR 55 T 2140 did not have a valid NP authorization certificate on 26.01.2018. RE was thereafter closed.

Evidence in DAR Petition No. 85/18

9. Wife of deceased filed her affidavit by way of evidence Ex. PW 1/ A and examined herself as PW1. Witness has relied upon the documents i.e. E.x PW 1/1 copy of adhar card of petitioner No. 1, Ex. PW 1/ 2 copy of PAN Card of petitioner No. 1, Ex PW 1/ 3 copy of adhar card of petitioner No. 4, Ex PW 1/ 4 copy of adhar card of petitioner No. 5, Ex PW 1/ 5 copy DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18 7 of 43 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

of PAN card of petitioner No. 5, Copy of birth certificate of petitioner No. 2 Ex PW 1/ 6, copy of adhar card of petitioner No. 6 E.x PW 1/ 7, copy of family registration certificate of all petitioner Ex. PW 1/ 8, copy of adhar card of deceased E.x PW 1/ 9, salary certificate issued by employer Ex PW 1/ 10, the relevant document associated with road traffic accident of the deceased Ex PW 1/ 11 and copy of birth certificate of petitioner No. 3 mark A. Petitioner also summoned and examined the witness i.e. Anoop Vaswani as PW2 deposed that he has seen the document Ex PW 1/ 10 which is the salary certificate of the deceased issued by the agency.

Petitioner also examined eyewitness of the accident i.e. Sh. Ravi Kumar as PW3 by way of affidavit E.x PW 3/A. PE was thereafter closed.

10. Respondent No. 3 examined respondent No. 1 as R3W1 deposed that he is R1 in the case. On 26.01.2018 he was going from side of Nanaksar to Chauhan Patti on pusta road. When he reached 4 ½ pusta the petitioner came from side road of the colony and came on main road and as he came suddenly in front of his vehicle truck, the accident was caused to him and he suffered injuries. He stopped at the spot and remained there till police came there. Police took the injured to the hospital. He was taken to the PS and case was registered.

Respondent No. 3 examined SI Rajender Prasad, No. 35002, MACT Cell, NE, Delhi as R3W2 deposed that he is the IO in case FIR No. 28/18 dated 27.01.2018 PS Sonia Vihar and after investigation filed the DAR and Chargesheet before the Tribunal. Whatever documents were submitted by the R1 and R2 were filed with the DAR after verification. He has not verified the DL of the deceased as no such particulars available with him. He cannot say whether the national permit authorisation for the offending DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18 8 of 43 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

vehicle truck No. HR55T2140 was valid at the time of accident. As per basic goods permit it was valid till 2019.

Respondent No. 3 examined the witness Dr. Kunal Kishor, MO JPC Hospital, Shashtri Park, Delhi as R3W3 deposed that on 26.01.2018 at 11.48 p.m. patients Ravi and Vivek had came to casualty on account of RTA. They prepared the MLC and Ravi was referred to Ortho SR for further treatment and management and in case of Vivek patient was referred to surgery OPD where he admitted on 27.01.2018 at 9.00 a.m. The MLC No. of Ravi is 12321 and Vivek is 12322.

The downloaded copy of the transaction details with regard to the National Permit Autorisation of insured vehicle no. HR55T2140 DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18 9 of 43 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

Ex.R3W4/4. The certificate under section 65B of Evidence Act Ex.R3W4/5. As per the record of the office of the Secretary, RTA, Gurgaon the insured vehicle was not having a valid national permit authorisation certificate as on date of accident i.e. 26.01.2018.

The condition mark X to X of Ex.R3W4/1 has been violated and hence the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured Ram Murat.

Evidence in DAR Petition No. 86/18

11. Injured has filed his affidavit by way of evidence Ex. PW 1/1 and examined himself as PW1. PE was thereafter closed.

12. Respondent No. 3 examined respondent No. 1 as R3W1 deposed that he is R1 in the case. On 26.01.2018 he was going from side of Nanaksar to Chauhan Patti on pusta road. When he reached 4 ½ pusta the petitioner came from side road of the colony and came on main road and as he came suddenly in front of his vehicle truck, the accident was caused to him and he suffered injuries. He stopped at the spot and remained there till police came there. Police took the injured to the hospital. He was taken to the PS and case was registered.

DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18 10 of 43 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

The patient Vivek was very drowsy and under the influence of alcohol and he was not in a position where they could conduct breath analyzer test and he could not even stand on his feet. Upon examination, a full bottle of alcohol was retrieved from below the shirt of patient Ravi Respondent No. 3 examined the witness i.e. Ms. Reema Prabha, Asstt. Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd as R3W4 appeared with the computerized certified copy of the insurance policy bearing no. 0417843117P114237716 for the period 07.01.2018 to 06.01.2019, insuring vehicle no. HR55T2140 in the name of Sh. Ram Murat. The certified copy of the policy Ex.R3W4/1 (Colly. 2 pages). The said policy contains the permit clause mark X to X DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18 11 of 43 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

A notice to produce under order 12 Rule 8 CPC was issued by counsel for production of the documents and copy of same Ex.R3W4/2. The endorsement of the counsel for R1 of having receipt the notice in the court on 28.07.2018 at point - A on Ex.R3W4/2. The original postal registration slip is Ex.R3W4/3.

The downloaded copy of the transaction details with regard to the National Permit Autorisation of insured vehicle no. HR55T2140 Ex.R3W4/4. The certificate under section 65B of Evidence Act Ex.R3W4/5. As per the record of the office of the Secretary, RTA, Gurgaon the insured vehicle was not having a valid national permit authorisation certificate as on date of accident i.e. 26.01.2018.

The condition mark X to X of Ex.R3W4/1 has been violated and hence the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured Ram Murat.

13. I have heard Ld. Counsel for petitioner, ld. counsel for respondent No. 1 and ld. Counsel for insurance company and considered the relevant materials on record. I have also gone through the written submissions filed on behalf of respondent No. 1. I have also gone through the judgment relied DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18 12 of 43 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

upon by petitioner reported as 2018 ACJ 1768 title Amrit Paul Singh & Ors. V/s TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd & judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC App. No. 37 decided on 20.12.2017 title National co. Ltd. V/s Pushpa & Ors. I have also gone through the judgment relied upon by ld. Counsel for insurance company of High Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC App. No. 401/16 title Mohd. Manzoor & Ors V/s Khuyabuda Khatun & Ors. My issue wise findings are as below :

14. My findings on the aforesaid issues are as follows : Issue No. 1 in petition No. 84/18:

1. Whether petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR 55 T2140 at Main Pusta Road, 4th Pushta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi by respondent NO. 1 on 26.01.2018 within the jurisdiction of PS Sonia Vihar ?OPP Issue No. 1 in petition No. 85/18:

1. Whether petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR 55 T 2140 at main Pusta Road, 4th Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi by respondent No. 1 on 26.01.2018 within the jurisdiction of PS DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18 13 of 43 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

Sonia Vihar ? OPP

15. To succeed in the claim petitions in view of Section 166 of the MV Act, it is for the claimant to prove that vehicle which caused the accident was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. Issue No. 1 in all three cases is taken up together. Petitioner / injured Nandan, Manisha and Ravi were examined and deposed about the facts of the case. They were crossexamined by ld. Counsel for respondents and during cross examination nothing has come forward in their testimony to disbelieve the version of PWs. On the other hand, the testimony of RWs did not rebut the testimony of PW to deny the claim of the petitioner and mere denial is not sufficient to rebut the claim of the petitioner. No witness was produced or examined by respondents as well to prove as to how accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased/ injured; the respondent No. 1 was not at fault and was not driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of witnesses. DAR filed by IO which includes copy of FIR, site plan, MLC etc. I have gone through the record and documents in respect of the accident caused to the petitioner which is prima facie suggestive of negligence of respondent No. 1 in driving the vehicle at the time of accident.

Relied judgment in (Bimla Devi and Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors., (2009) 13 SC 530 and the judgment in Parmeshwari v. Amir Chand (2011) 11 SCC 635 and Kusum Lata v. Satbir, (2011) 3 SCC 646).

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi and Ors. V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors, (2009) 13 SC 530 held as under:

"15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18 14 of 43 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

borne in mind that strict proof of any accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimant. The claimants 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."

16. In judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Deepak Goel & Ors., 2014 (2), T.A.C. 846 (Del.), it was held that in a case, where FIR is lodged, chargesheet is filed, then the documents mentioned above are sufficient to establish the fact that the driver of the vehicle in question was negligent in causing the accident particularly when there was no defence available from his side. In case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamlesh, 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310, an adverse inference was drawn because the driver of the offending vehicle had not appeared in the witness box to corroborate his defence taken in the written statement. It was noted that there was nothing on record to show that the Claimant had any enmity with the driver of the offending vehicle so as to falsely implicate him in the case.

17. I have gone through the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 2009 ACJ 287, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana to examine the aspect of negligence wherein in the Hon'ble High Court held that: In case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of the investigation by the police or the issuance of charge sheet under section 279/304 A IPC or the certified copy of the FIR or in addition the recovery memo and the mechanical DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18 15 of 43 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach to the conclusion that the driver was negligent. It was further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard.

Further, in Kaushnumma Begum and others V/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident has been left to a secondary importance and it was held that, mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would made the petition maintainable under section 166 and 140 of the Act. It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be construed lightly while making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code. This is because the chapter in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with compensation is a benevolent legislation and not a penal one.

Further the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC App. No.200/2012 in case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Smt. Rinki @ Rinku & Ors decided on 23/07/2012 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, held as under:

"The Claims Tribunal was conscious of the fact that negligence is a sine qua non to a Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(the Act). It is also true that the proceedings for grant of compensation under the Act are neither governed by the criminal procedures nor are a civil suit.

DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18 16 of 43 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

18. Therefore, in view of the criminal case record and statement of PWs, it is proved that the deceased Vivek Mishra and injured Nandan and Ravi sustained fatal injuries and grievous injuries on 26.01.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing No. HR 55 T 2140 driven by its driver i.e. respondent No. 1. The issue is decided accordingly. Issue No. ii in DAR petition No. 84/18 :

(ii) Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation ? If so to what amount and from whom? OPP

19. Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2011) 1 SCC 343 titled Raj Kumar V/s Ajay Kumar & Anr. examined the general principles relating to compensation in injury cases. As held:

4. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( Act for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should , to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court of tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18 17 of 43 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer V. T. Kunhikuttan Nair MANU/SC/0011/1969 : AIR 1970 SC 375, R.D. Hattangadi V. Pest Control ( India) Ltd.

MANU/SC/0146/1995 : 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker V. Willoughby 1970 AC 467.

5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages ( Special Damages)

(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.

(ii) Loss of earning ( 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. 
                  Nonpecuniary 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). 
DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18                                           18 of 43

Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (I), (ii) (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)

(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earning on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities ( and / or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. Assessment of pecuniary damages under item (I) and under item (ii) (a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actual and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses item (iii) depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non pecuniary damages items (iv), (v) and (vi) - involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/ disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant.

improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed which reference to the whole body, or more often then an not, with reference to a particularly limb. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earning would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. What requires to be assessed by the tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on his earnings capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earnings capacity in terms of percentage of income, it has been pointify in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earning( by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency As further held, the trial has to first decide whether there is an permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability ( this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18 20 of 43 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood.

Hon'ble Supreme court laid down the principles in respect of the assessment of compensation regarding injuries as below:

(i) All injuries ( or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.

(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability ( except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability).

(iii) The doctor who treated an injuredclaimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.

(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentage of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors.

20. I have gone through the testimony of the witnesses alongwith DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18 21 of 43 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

complete medical records. It is deposed that due to the accident, injured sustained serious and grievous injuries; immediately taken to Trauma Centre Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi where MLC was prepared. It is further deposed that petitioner was admitted in hospital on 26.01.2018 and was discharged by the doctors on 07.02.2018. The petitioner claimed that he was working as operator at DLF Connaught place and getting salary of R.s 14,500/ per month. No documents has been filed / proved by the petitioner regarding his income therefore in the absence of any records, he is entitled to compensation as per minimum wages Act as applicable to unskilled workman while considering his monthly salary as per prevalent rate at relevant time i.e. 26.01.2018 when accident took place. The income of the injured is assessed as per the minimum wages on the date of accident i.e 26.01.2018 which was Rs. 9,724/ per month for unskilled workman.

21. I have gone through the medical records of the petitioner. There is nothing on record in support of the affidavit of PW1 that he suffered any loss of earnings from his work. However, with the kind of injuries suffered by him, it can be safely assumed that he would have been under treatment for about three months. He is thus awarded Rs. 29,172/ (Rs. 9,724/ X 3) for three months for Loss of Wages.

22. The petitioner has claimed amount towards compensation from the respondent. It is also claimed that after the accident, the petitioner could not perform his routine and required attendant/ assistance for his day to day business; he also suffered financial losses due the accident and his family suffered mental pain and agony.

23. While fixing compensation for pain and sufferings, as also for loss of amenities of life, the features like the age and unusual deprivation undertaken by a person in his life generally are to be reckoned. From the DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18 22 of 43 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

overall assessment, I assess Rs. 50,000/ as compensation towards Pain, Shock and Suffering to the Claimant as patient suffered multiple facial injuries.

24. Ld. Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has spent amount for his treatment but no medical bills has been filed on record. Therefore petitioner is not awarded any amount towards medical bills.

25. The Claimant has not filed any document in support of the fact that he had incurred expenses on keeping an attendant, for conveyance and for extra nutritious diet. However, I guess he must have spent some amount for which he is awarded a lumpsum amount of Rs. 10,000/ for Special Diet and for Conveyance Charges.

26. Keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner and the fact that he was under constant treatment, he needed an Attendant to look after him and the petitioner is therefore, entitled to attendant charges. Petitioner has not filed any record to show that he has received help of special attendant however, some family member must have been attending him. A victim of accident has to be compensated in terms of money even if gratuitous services are under by a family members. In Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Lalita AIR 1981 Delhi 558, a Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court held that there cannot be any deduction if domestic help is obtained from a family member. This judgment was again relied upon by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Narayan Bahadur v. Sumeet Gupta and Anr., MAC APP. No. 762/11 dated 04.07.12. In the circumstances, where the injured had suffered injury, it is deemed fit that a lump sum of Rs. 10,000/ be awarded as compensation towards Attendant charges.

27. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, I consider the DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18 23 of 43 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

following amount to be the just compensation to the Claimant :

1. Future Loss of Income Rs. 0/

2. Towards Pain Shock & Suffering Rs. 50,000/ 3 Towards Servant / Attendant Charges Rs. 10,000/

4. Towards Conveyance & Special diet Rs. 10,000/ 5 Towards medical bills Rs. 0/ 6 Towards loss of Wages( three months) Rs. 29,172/ Total= Rs. 99,172/ I accordingly award an amount of compensation of Rs. 99,172/ in favour of the Claimant and against Respondents. Issue No. ii in DAR petition No. 85/18 :

(ii) Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation ? If so to what amount and from whom? OPP

28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagappa V/s Gurdayal Singh reported as 2003(2) SCC 274 ruled that the main guiding principle for determining the compensation is that it must be just and further that it must be reasonable. As observed in UP State Road Transport corporation V/s Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362, the compensation awarded in such cases has primarily two elements; the pecuniary loss to the estate of the deceased resulting from the accident and the pecuniary loss sustained by members of his family on account of his death in addition to the conventional award under non pecuniary heads of damages( e.g. loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses etc).

29. The damages are to be based on the reasonable expectation on pecuniary benefit or benefits reduceable to money value. In General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation V/s Susamma Thomas reported as (1994) 2 SCC 176, the court ruled that in fatal accident action, DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18 24 of 43 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

the measure of damages is the pecuniary loss suffered or likely to be suffered by each dependent as a result of death and that : "9.The assessment of damages to compensate the dependants is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables, e.g., the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that that deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income altogether".

30. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma V/s DTC reported as (2009) 6 SCC 121 held as under:

16. ... "Just compensation" is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profits.

17. Assessment of compensation though involving certain hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective. Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness and uniformity in the decision making process DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18 25 of 43 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

and the decisions. While, it may not be possible to have mathematical precision or identical awards, in assessing compensation same or similar facts should lead to award in the same range. When the factors/ inputs are the same, and the formula/ legal principles are the same, consistency and uniformity and not divergence and freakiness, should be the result of adjudication to arrive at just compensation.

31. No amount of compensation can restore, eliminate or ameliorate the loss suffered on account of death ( or injury with lasting effect) the endeavor by such award is to repair the damage done so as to restore the victim( which includes the dependent) to the extent possible to the preaccidental position. The pecuniary damages are meant to take care of the prospective pecuniary loss of future income and the non pecuniary damages to compensate, to an extent, for pain and suffering , loss of love, companionship, expectation of life etc. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. K Malik V/s Kiran Pal reported as 2009 (14) SCC 1 observed as under:

22. It is extremely difficult to quantify the non pecuniary compensation as it is to a great extent based upon the sentiments and emotions. But, the same could not be a ground for non payment of any amount whatsoever by stating that it is difficult to quantify and pinpoint the exact amount payable with mathematical accuracy.

23. Human life cannot be measured only in terms of loss of earning or monetary losses alone. There are emotional attachments involved and loss of a child can have a devastating effect on the family which can be easily DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18 26 of 43 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

visualised and understood. Perhaps , the only mechanism known to law in this kind of situation is to compensate a person who has suffered non pecuniary loss or damages as a consequence of the wrong done to him by way of damages / monetary compensation. Undoubtedly, when a victim of a wrong suffers injuries he is entitled to compensation including compensation for the prospective life, pain and suffering, happiness, etc., which is sometimes described as compensation paid for "loss of expectation of life".

32. The challenge in determining the ' just and reasonable' compensation in such cases is mainly due to the fact that there is virtually no evidence in actual loss of earning of the deceased child. Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. K. Malik(supra) noted:

25. That being the position, the crucial problem arises with regard to the quantification of such compensation. The injury inflicted by deprivation of the life of a child is extremely difficult to quantify. In view of the uncertainties and contingencies of human life, what would be an appropriate figure, an adequate solatium is difficult to specify. The courts have therefore used the expression "standard compensation" and conventional amount/ sum"

to get over the difficulty that arises in quantifying a figure as the same ensures consistency and uniformity in awarding compensation."

33. I have gone through the testimony of the witnesses alongwith complete records. The petitioners have prayed amount towards compensation from respondents. It is argued by Ld counsel for respondents that petitioners have not suffered any monetary loss on account of the fatal DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18 27 of 43 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

accident and therefore, they are not entitled for compensation.

There is no dispute at all regarding the offending vehicle nor there is dispute that deceased Vivek Mishra received fatal injuries due to the accident. The factum of accident as well as death is not denied. The testimony of PW1 / wife of deceased remained unimpeached / uncontroverted and witness proved the relevant documents. No contrary evidence has been brought on record by the respondents.

34. PW1 i.e. wife of the deceased deposed that at the time of accident, her deceased husband was 24 years of age and was working as a supply supervisor M/s Supreme Agencies and earned Rs. 19,850/ per month. In support of contentions, petitioner has summoned and examined the witness i.e. Anoop Vaswani as PW2 but the testimony of witness was totally shattered during cross examination as they did not maintain any register with regard to the employees working under them and have therefore not brought the same; he has not brought the bank statement to show withdrawal of the amount being claimed to be paid to the employees as salary; he cannot tell regarding the qualification of the deceased. Keeping in view of the abovesaid facts, the income of the deceased has to be considered on the basis of minimum wages applicable to the unskilled workman on the date of accident i.e. 26.01.2018. Therefore, income of the deceased is assessed as Rs. 9,724/ per month. As per adhar card of deceased, the date of birth of deceased is 01.01.1994. The accident took place on 26.01.2018 therefore the age of the deceased is taken as about 25 years on the date of accident. In the judgment Munna Lal Jain and Others Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and Others reported as MANU/SC/0640/2015 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15/05/2015 and National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi & Ors. in SLP ( Civil) No. 25590/2014 DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18 28 of 43 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

decided on 31.10.2017, it has been held that multiplier is to be used with reference to the age of the deceased. There is nothing on record to show that deceased was self employed or working in fixed salary; nothing is proved in respect of income of the deceased. In view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmidhar Nayak & Ors. V/s Juggal Kishore Behera & Ors reported as MANU/SC/1506/2017, petitioners are not entitled for compensation towards future prospects.

35. In the present case, there are 6 petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 is wife of deceased, petitioner No. 2 and 3 are children of deceased, petitioner No. 4 and 5 are mother and father of deceased and petitioner No. 6 is sister of deceased. Petitioner No. 5 and 6 were not dependent upon the deceased in view of the records, so 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal expenses. Therefore, the total loss of dependency would be calculated as follows : Rs. 9,724/ X 12 (annual) X 18 (Multiplier) = Rs. 21,00,384/ Rs. 21,00,384/ - Rs. 5,25,096/ (1/4th personal expenses) = Rs. 15,75,288/ The total amount towards loss of dependency is accordingly Rs. 15,75,288/.

36. Placing reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court of Delhi in National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi & Ors. in SLP ( Civil) No. 25590/2014 decided on 31.10.2017, the petitioners are entitled for the loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses of Rs. 15,000/, Rs. 40,000/ and Rs. 15,000/ respectively.

Therefore, petitioners are also entitled for compensation under the following heads: Loss of dependency Rs. 15,75,288/ Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/ DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18 29 of 43 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

Loss of Estate                                     Rs. 15,000/
Funeral Expenses                                   Rs. 15,000/
Total                                              Rs. 16,45,288/

Ld. counsel for insurance company vehemently argued that due to the contributory negligence of the deceased Vivek Mishra, petitioners are not entitled for the compensation. The contributory negligence of deceased is proved in view of testimony of witness Nandan who deposed during cross examination that he and Vivek Mishra had consumed alcohol prior to the accident. It is further deposed that deceased Vivek Mishra was driving the motorcycle. The contributory negligence of the deceased is also proved in view of testimony of SI Rajender Prasad who deposed during cross examination that he has not verified the DL of the deceased as no such particulars available with him. Keeping in view of circumstances of the case, the 25 % of the total compensation amount is deducted towards contributory negligence. The petitioner is accordingly entitled for compensation of Rs. 12,33,966/ from the respondents.

I accordingly award an amount of compensation of Rs. 12,33,966/ in favour of the Claimant and against respondents. Issue No. ii in DAR petition No. 86/18: ii. Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP

37. Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2011) 1 SCC 343 titled Raj Kumar V/s Ajay Kumar & Anr. examined the general principles relating to compensation in injury cases. As held:

4. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( Act for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18 30 of 43 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

means that compensation should , to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court of tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer V. T. Kunhikuttan Nair MANU/SC/0011/1969 : AIR 1970 SC 375, R.D. Hattangadi V. Pest Control ( India) Ltd.

MANU/SC/0146/1995 : 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker V. Willoughby 1970 AC 467.

5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages ( Special Damages)

(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.

                  (ii)     Loss of earning ( and other gains) which the
DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18                                             31 of 43

Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

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. 
                  Nonpecuniary 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).

(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earning on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities ( and / or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. Assessment of pecuniary damages under item (I) and under item (ii) (a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actual and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses item (iii) depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18 32 of 43 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non pecuniary damages items (iv), (v) and (vi) - involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/ disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant.

Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed regarding assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability that disability refers to any restriction for lack of liability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for human being permanent disability refers to the residuary in capacity or loss of huge of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after receiving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed which reference to the whole body, or more often then an not, with reference to a particularly limb. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earning would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. What requires to be assessed by the tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on his earnings capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earnings capacity in terms of percentage of income, it has been pointify in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earning( by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18 33 of 43 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

dependency As further held, the trial has to first decide whether there is an permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability ( this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood.

Hon'ble Supreme court laid down the principles in respect of the assessment of compensation regarding injuries as below:

(i) All injuries ( or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.

(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability ( except in a few cases, DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18 34 of 43 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability).

38. I have gone through the testimony of the witnesses alongwith complete medical records. It is deposed that due to the accident, injured sustained serious and grievous injuries; immediately taken to Trauma Centre Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi where MLC was prepared. It is further deposed that petitioner was admitted in hospital and remained admitted in the hospital at about two months. The petitioner claimed that he was working as transport agent at Seelampur and earned Rs. 50,000/ per month. No documents has been filed / proved by the petitioner regarding his income therefore in the absence of any records, he is entitled to compensation as per minimum wages Act as applicable to unskilled workman while considering his monthly salary as per prevalent rate at relevant time i.e. 26.01.2018 when accident took place. The income of the injured is assessed as per the minimum wages on the date of accident i.e 26.01.2018 which was Rs. 9,724/ per month for unskilled workman.

DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18 35 of 43 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

39. I have gone through the medical records of the petitioner. There is nothing on record in support of the affidavit of PW1 that he suffered any loss of earnings from his work. However, with the kind of injuries suffered by him, it can be safely assumed that he would have been under treatment for about three months. He is thus awarded Rs. 29,172/ (Rs. 9,724/ X 3) for three months for Loss of Wages.

40. The petitioner has claimed amount towards compensation from the respondent. It is also claimed that after the accident, the petitioner could not perform his routine and required attendant/ assistance for his day to day business; he also suffered financial losses due the accident and his family suffered mental pain and agony.

41. While fixing compensation for pain and sufferings, as also for loss of amenities of life, the features like the age and unusual deprivation undertaken by a person in his life generally are to be reckoned. From the overall assessment, I assess Rs. 50,000/ as compensation towards Pain, Shock and Suffering to the Claimant as patient suffered multiple facial injuries.

42. Ld. Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has spent amount for his treatment but no medical bills has been filed on record. Therefore petitioner is not awarded any amount towards medical bills.

43. The Claimant has not filed any document in support of the fact that he had incurred expenses on keeping an attendant, for conveyance and for extra nutritious diet. However, I guess he must have spent some amount for which he is awarded a lumpsum amount of Rs. 10,000/ for Special Diet and for Conveyance Charges.

44. Keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner and the fact that he was under constant treatment, he needed an Attendant to DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18 36 of 43 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

look after him and the petitioner is therefore, entitled to attendant charges. Petitioner has not filed any record to show that he has received help of special attendant however, some family member must have been attending him. A victim of accident has to be compensated in terms of money even if gratuitous services are under by a family members. In Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Lalita AIR 1981 Delhi 558, a Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court held that there cannot be any deduction if domestic help is obtained from a family member. This judgment was again relied upon by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Narayan Bahadur v. Sumeet Gupta and Anr., MAC APP. No. 762/11 dated 04.07.12. In the circumstances, where the injured had suffered injury, it is deemed fit that a lump sum of Rs. 10,000/ be awarded as compensation towards Attendant charges.

45. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, I consider the following amount to be the just compensation to the Claimant :

1. Future Loss of Income Rs. 0/

2. Towards Pain Shock & Suffering Rs. 50,000/ 3 Towards Servant / Attendant Charges Rs. 10,000/

46. Respondent No. 2 is the insurance company which admittedly has issued a valid insurance policy of the offending vehicle. Respondent No. 2 DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18 37 of 43 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

being insurance company in its written statement has admitted that there is valid insurance policy issued. Ld counsel for insurance company vehemently argued that insurance company is not liable to pay the amount to petitioner as offending vehicle No. HR 55 T 2140 did not have a valid NP authorization certificate on 26.01.2018.

I have gone through the documents on record. Respondent No. 3 examined the witness i.e. Ms. Reema Prabha, Asstt. Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd as R3W4 appeared with the computerized certified copy of the insurance policy bearing no. 0417843117P114237716 for the period 07.01.2018 to 06.01.2019, insuring vehicle no. HR55T2140 in the name of Sh. Ram Murat. The certified copy of the policy Ex.R3W4/1 (Colly. 2 pages). The said policy contains the permit clause mark X to X A notice to produce under order 12 Rule 8 CPC was issued by counsel for production of the documents and copy of same Ex.R3W4/2. The endorsement of the counsel for R1 of having receipt the notice in the court on 28.07.2018 at point - A on Ex.R3W4/2. The original postal registration slip is Ex.R3W4/3.

The condition mark X to X of Ex.R3W4/1 has been violated and hence the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured Ram Murat.

Respondent No. 3 examined the witness i.e. Sh. Manish Kumar, DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18 38 of 43 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

Transport Inspector, office of Secretary RTA, Gurgaon, Haryana as R3W5 appeared with the summoned record i.e. original permit register showing the issuance of NP Authorization certificate for vehicle No. HR 55 T 2140 , the relevant pages Ex. R3W5/1( Colly5 pages), he has also seen the document Ex. R3W4/4 which has been shown to him from court file and he state that same reflects the correct record and matches with records. As per record, the vehicle No. HR 55 T 2140 did not have a valid NP authorization certificate on 26.01.2018.

The testimony of R3W4 and R3W5 remained un impeached and uncontroverted. In view of testimony of R3W4 and R3W5, it appears that respondent No. 1 has breached the terms and condition of insurance policy and also violated the provisions of M. V. Act. In view of the evidence on behalf of Insurance company, the insurance company has right to recover the amount from respondent No. 1. Hence, I am of the opinion that respondent No. 2 being insurance company is liable to pay the compensation on behalf of respondent No. 1 with right to recovery. Interim award if any paid to injured/ petitioner be adjusted in the award amount. Award in DAR petition No. 84/18:

47. Resultantly, the DAR petition stands allowed. Insurance Company is hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 99,172/ within one month to the Claimant. Claimant is also entitled to the interest @ 09 % p.a. on the total compensation amount from the date of filing of petition till realization. (The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gopali & Ors., 2012 ACJ 2131 SC, Jiju Kuruvila & Ors. Vs. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors., 2013 ACJ 2141 SC, Puttamma Vs. K.L. Naraynan Reddy & Ors., 2014 ACJ 526 SC). Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount with UCO Bank, KKD Courts Branch, Delhi.

DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18 39 of 43 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

48. Withdrawal from the said Account shall be permitted to Claimant after production of passbook of the bank account near the place of the residence with due endorsement that no debit card or cheque book has been issued or debit card / cheque book has been cancelled ( if issued).

49. The award amount alongwith interest be deposited by Insurance Company, within 30 days. In case, the Insurance Company fails to deposit this compensation with proportionate interest, in that event, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal, 2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of Insurance Company with a cost of Rs. 10,000/.

50. FormV shall be read as a part of the judgment. Award in DAR petition No. 85/18:

51. Resultantly, the DAR petition stands allowed. Insurance company is hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 12,33,966/ within one month to the Claimants. Claimants are also entitled to the interest @ 09 % p.a. on the total compensation amount from the date of filing of petition till realization. (The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gopali & Ors., 2012 ACJ 2131 SC, Jiju Kuruvila & Ors. Vs. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors., 2013 ACJ 2141 SC, Puttamma Vs. K.L. Naraynan Reddy & Ors., 2014 ACJ 526 SC).

52. The insurance company is directed to deposit the amount with UCO Bank, KKD Courts Branch, Delhi.

53. Out of the total award amount of Rs. 12,33,966/, UCO Bank, KKD Courts is directed to keep the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ in 4 FDRs of Rs. 50,000/ each for the maturity period of six month to two years respectively ( at the interval of six month each) with cumulative interest in the name of DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18 40 of 43 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

petitioner No. 1.

54. An amount of Rs. 4,00,000/ each in favour of petitioner No. 2 and 3 shall be deposited in form of two FDRs till they attain the age of maturity.

55. UCO Bank, KKD Courts is directed to release the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ in favour of petitioner No. 4 in her saving bank account after production of passbook of the bank account near the place of the residence with due endorsement that no debit card or cheque book has been issued or debit card / cheque book has been cancelled ( if issued).

56. UCO Bank, KKD Courts is directed to release the remaining amount alongwith interest in favour of petitioner No. 1 in her saving bank account after production of passbook of the bank account near the place of the residence with due endorsement that no debit card or cheque book has been issued or debit card / cheque book has been cancelled ( if issued).

57. Withdrawal from the said Account shall be permitted to the petitioner after due verification.

58. All the original FDRs shall be retained by the UCO bank, KKD Courts. However, the statement containing the FDRs number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by the UCO Bank to the petitioner/ beneficiary. On expiry of period of each FDR, the Bank shall automatically credit the maturity amount in Savings Account of beneficiary. The beneficiary shall intimate regarding his bank and account number for automatic credit of the maturity amount.

59. No loan, advance or premature discharge of the FDRs shall be permitted without permission of this court.

60. The maturity amount of the FDRs alongwith interest thereon be transferred to the saving bank accounts of the beneficiary.

61. The liberty is given to the petitioner/ injured to approach this court DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18 41 of 43 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

for release of further amount in event of any financial exigency.

62. On request of Claimant, bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch in the name of petitioner and the bank of the petitioner are directed not to issue any cheque book or Debit Card to the account holder.

63. The award amount alongwith interest be deposited by Insurance Company, within 30 days. In case, the Insurance Company fails to deposit this compensation with proportionate interest, in that event, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal, 2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of Insurance Company with a cost of Rs. 10,000/.

64. FormV shall be read as a part of the judgment. Award in DAR petition No. 86/18:

65. Resultantly, the DAR petition stands allowed. Insurance company is hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 99,172/ within one month to the Claimant. Claimant is also entitled to the interest @ 09 % p.a. on the total compensation amount from the date of filing of petition till realization. (The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gopali & Ors., 2012 ACJ 2131 SC, Jiju Kuruvila & Ors. Vs. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors., 2013 ACJ 2141 SC, Puttamma Vs. K.L. Naraynan Reddy & Ors., 2014 ACJ 526 SC). Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount with UCO Bank, KKD Courts Branch, Delhi.

66. Withdrawal from the said Account shall be permitted to Claimant after production of passbook of the bank account near the place of the residence with due endorsement that no debit card or cheque book has been issued or debit card / cheque book has been cancelled ( if issued).

67. The award amount alongwith interest be deposited by Insurance DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18 42 of 43 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

Company, within 30 days. In case, the Insurance Company fails to deposit this compensation with proportionate interest, in that event, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal, 2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of Insurance Company with a cost of Rs. 10,000/.

68. FormV shall be read as a part of the judgment.

69. Copy of this judgment be placed in the DAR petitions bearing Nos.

84/18, 85/18 & 86/18.                                                               Digitally signed by
                                                                                    GORAKH NATH
                                  GORAKH                                            PANDEY
                                                                                    Location: Court

 Announced in open Court 
                                  NATH                                              No.69, North East
                                                                                    District, Karkardooma
on this day of 20  October,  2018 PANDEY
                     th                                                             Court, Delhi
                                                                                    Date: 2018.10.20
                                                                                    16:57:07 +0530
                                                G. N. Pandey

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

DAR Nos. 84/18, 85/18 & 86/18                                           43 of 43

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

Nandan S/O Ishwar Dutt vs Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd & ... on 20 October, 2018