Delhi District Court
Sunil Kumar (Injured) vs Sarvesh Kumar (Driver) on 2 September, 2022
BEFORE THE COURT OF SH. SURINDER S. RATHI, LD. PO
MACT-II, WEST, THC, DELHI
CNR No. DLWT01-009275-2017
Petition No. 722/2017
FIR No. 348/2017
PS Ranhola
U/s 279/338 IPC
Sunil Kumar (Injured)
s/o Sh. Rajbir
R/o Silana, Jhajjar, Silani, Haryana-124103.
.....Petitioner
V/s
1. Sarvesh Kumar (Driver)
S/o Sh. Budhan Rai
R/o Simiyahi Post, Yadupatti,
Dewari Matauna, Sitamarhi, Bihar-843319.
2. Surender Kumar (Owner)
S/o Sh. Azad Singh
R/o H. No. 901, Village and Post
Office Mundka, New Delhi-110041
3. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company
Office at: 34, Nehru Place,
Iffco House III Floor, New Delhi-09
......Respondents
Date of Institution : 13.10.2017
Date of Arguments : 02.09.2022
Date of pronouncement : 02.09.2022
Petition no. 722/2017 page 1 of 22
Sunil Kumar Vs. Sarvesh Kumar & Ors.
AWAR D
1. This claim petition has been registered on the basis of DAR filed by police qua and accident which took place on 11.06.2017 under jurisdiction of PS Ranhola between a truck and a motorcycle wherein injured Sunil Kumar suffered amputation of both his hands. Brief facts
2. On 11.06.2017 at 11.00 AM injured Sunil Kumar was travelling as a pillion rider with his cousin on a motorcycle from Najafgarh to Nangloi when they were hit by the rashly driven offending truck DL- 1GC-6618 from the side. The accident resulted in grievous injuries. FIR in question was registered under Section 279/338 IPC followed by filing of DAR and Section 173 Cr.PC Report.
3. Notice of the DAR was issued to the respondents R1 Driver Sarvesh Kumar and R2 Owner Surender Kumar and R3 Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company. Separate WS was filed on behalf of R2 Owner and R3 Insurance Company. Right of R1 to file WS was closed.
4. Out of the pleadings, following issues were identified by Ld. Predecessor on 08.08.2018 which are as under:
1. Whether the petitioner Sunil Kumar suffered injuries in a vehicular accident that took place on 11.06.2017 at about 11.00 am at Najafgarh Nangloi Road near Bakkarwala mod, Delhi, involving a Truck bearing Registration No. DL-1GC-6618, driven by respondent no. 1 Sarvesh Kumar in a rash and negligent manner, owned by respondent no. 2 Surender Kumar and insured with respondent no. 3 Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If yes, what would be the amount and who would be liable to pay?
3. Relief.
Petition no. 722/2017 page 2 of 22
Sunil Kumar Vs. Sarvesh Kumar & Ors.
Evidence led by Parties
5. To prove his case claimant examined himself as PW1, PW2 is Dr. Naresh Chandra, GGS Hospital and PW3 is Sunil Kumar Yadav, Contractor. Insurance company examined R3W1 Siddhant Jaiswal. Final Arguments
6. I have heard arguments of Sh. Dalip Singh, Ld. Counsel for petitioner alongwith injured Sunil Kumar, Sh. Lalit Bhati, Ld. Counsel for R1 and R2 alongwith R1 in person, Sh. Vikrant Pratap Singh, Ld. Counsel for R3/insurance company and have perused the case file carefully.
Case of the Claimants
7. Case of the claimant as per DAR, Chargesheet and the evidence led is that he was aged 24 years and was working as a Data Entry Operator and Electronics Mechanic with S K Yadav, Government Contractor at Jhajjar, Haryana and was earning Rs.24,500/- per month. On 11.06.2017 at around 11.00 AM he was travelling from Najafgarh to Nangloi on a motorcycle no. HR-14K-4030 as a pillion rider with his cousin. When they reached Bakkarwala Mor, the offending truck DL-
1GC-6618 came in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and hit their motorcycle from the side.
8. As a result of the impact the motorcycle fell down and he received multiple grievous injuries. He was initially taken to Rathi Hospital and thereafter to AIIMS, Delhi. He remained hospitalized from 11.06.2017 to 18.06.2017. On account of the accident doctor amputated both his hands above the elbow and as a result he suffered 100% permanent disability in relation to both his upper limbs and whole body. He spent Rs.50,000/- on medical treatment and Special Petition no. 722/2017 page 3 of 22 Sunil Kumar Vs. Sarvesh Kumar & Ors.
Diet each apart from Rs.60,000/- on conveyance. He had to also engage a permanent attendant at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month for whole life.
9. He has exhibited following documents:
i. Copy of his aadhar card and certificates regarding education, courses and diploma are collectively Ex.PW1/1(6 sheets); ii. Copy of MLC issued by AIIMS Hospital is Ex.PW1/2; iii. The copy of discharge summary is Ex.PW1/3; iv. The copies of medical treatment report and OPD cards are Ex.PW1/4 (collectively) (2 sheets);
v. The copy of disability certificate is Ex.PW1/5; vi. The copy of concerned income/salary letter issued from the company is Ex.PW1/6;
vii. The copies of medical bills and medical records are collectively Ex.PW1/7;
viii. The copy of DAR is collectively Ex.PW1/8.
10.In his cross-examination he stated that the offending truck hit them from the right side. After the accident the driver fled from the spot leaving the truck behind. The truck was full bodied and he saw the same before it hit the motorcycle. After the treatment the disability certificate was issued by the Hospital on the orders of the Court. He denied that the documents of his employment and salary are forged. He accepted that he is not assessed to the income-tax. He denied the suggestion that he was unemployed. He also denied the suggestion that his claim of medical bills, conveyance, special diet and attendant are fabricated claims. He said that the offending truck was being driven at the speed of 50-60 KMPH. He was wearing helmet at the time of accident which was damaged in the accident.
11.The FIR was registered by the Police on the statement of one Narender, cousin of injured Sunil Kumar. He was driving the motorcycle with the injured as a pillion driver and narrated the sequence of events which led to this accident. As per FIR offered by Petition no. 722/2017 page 4 of 22 Sunil Kumar Vs. Sarvesh Kumar & Ors.
him R1 Driver Sarvesh Kumar disclosed his identity. The Site Plan shows Point A as the place of accident which is closer to the Central Verge on a two-way road. According to the medical record injured Sunil Kumar was a victim of RTA with crush injuries of both the arms and suffered amputation of both his upper limbs above elbow. The disability certificate issued by Handicap Board, Government Hospital, Jhajjar shows that he had suffered 100% permanent disability. The victim was referred to a Board for externally powered Trans Humeral Prosthesis Hand, Wrist Unit, Mechanical Elbow, Connector block, Silicon Glove and other related items. The report reveals that Trans Humeral Elbow Prothesis costs Rs.3,00,000/- for a person who is aged more than 12 years.
12.The mechanical inspection of the motorcycle shows fresh damages of rear right side indicator motor, right exhaust/silencer scratch, headlight and front number plate damaged, right mirror damaged. The offending vehicle i.e. truck was also found having fresh damage in the form of left side front bumper scratches, left side front show panel dent, left side below outer sheet scratches, dried blood marks on front and right tyres, front two windscreen glass broken and dent in left side below body outer sheet strips.
13.Section 133 MV Act notice was issued to R2 owner Surender Kumar to which he stated that on the date, time and place of accident the offending truck was driven by R1 Sarvesh Kumar. IO collected DL, RC, insurance and other necessary documents and recorded statement of witnesses before filing the DAR and the Section 173 Cr.PC Report.
14.According to the IO the victim had aged parents, wife and a son and Petition no. 722/2017 page 5 of 22 Sunil Kumar Vs. Sarvesh Kumar & Ors.
daughter aged 4 and 1 year. In the DAR it is mentioned that he is a graduate by education. Injured denied this submission stating that he had undergone 12th, ITI Diploma and Computer Education Training. Photographs of the site of accident showing the offending vehicle and the motorcycle alongwith helmet lying in its front are filed. Spilled blood is also visible in the coloured photographs.
15.PW2 is Dr. Naresh Chandra, HOD Ortho, GGS Hospital. He proved the disability certificate issued by the Board with a report that victim suffered 98% permanent locomotor disability on both his upper limbs vide report Ex.PW2/A he stated that victim is unable to do any activity by both upper limbs on account of amputation of both hands above elbow and would require a permanent attendant to assist.
16.PW3 is Sunil Kumar Yadav, Contractor and Employer of victim. Vide Ex.PW3/A he stated that he is a duly empanelled Government Contractor. He also filed computer generated GST Registration form and his Aadhar Card Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW3/C respectively. As per him victim was working as Data Entry Operator and Work Supervisor for Rs.24,500/- per month. He exhibited the salary slips and attendance report for February-June 2017 as Ex.PW3/D and Ex.PW3/E respectively. In his cross-examination he stated that he has 13 employees working for him. He said that Sunil Kumar joined his service on 01.04.2017. He added that he is income-tax payee. Case of the Respondent no. 2:
17.Case of R2 Owner as per WS filed is that he is not responsible for any compensation since the offending truck was being driven by R1. R2 has denied that the accident was caused by the offending truck or that it was being driven rashly by R1 or that any injury caused to the Petition no. 722/2017 page 6 of 22 Sunil Kumar Vs. Sarvesh Kumar & Ors.
victim in this accident.
Case of the Respondent no. 3/insurance company:
18.As per reply and the evidence led it is accepted by the insurance company that the victim suffered crush injury and both his hands were amputated. It is claimed that insurance company is not entitled for any compensation as the R1 Driver had a licence for driving Heavy Goods vehicle but did not have valid driving licence for driving vehicle with petroleum products. They accepted that the offending truck was insured with them for 01.10.2016 to 30.09.2018 in the name of its owner R2 Surender Kumar. In support of their plea they examined R3W1 Siddhant Jaiswal in his affidavit-in-chief Ex.R3W1/A he deposed on the lines of WS and exhibited following documents:
i. Copy of notice dated 01.10.2018 is Ex.R3W1/1; ii. Postal receipts are Ex.R3W1/2 and 3;
iii. Copy of insurance policy is Ex.R3W1/4.
19.Now I shall dispose of issues in this case.
Discussion and Findings on Issues:-
My findings on the issues are as under:-
i. Whether the petitioner Sunil Kumar suffered injuries in a vehicular accident that took place on 11.06.2017 at about 11.00 am at Najafgarh Nangloi Road near Bakkarwala mod, Delhi, involving a Truck bearing Registration No. DL- 1GC-6618, driven by respondent no. 1 Sarvesh Kumar in a rash and negligent manner, owned by respondent no. 2 Surender Kumar and insured with respondent no. 3 Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited?
20.In order to discharge the onus of proving this issue victim has examined himself as PW1 apart from examining PW2 Dr. Naresh Chandra and PW3 Sunil Kumar Yadav, his employer. PW1 being injured eye-witness has narrated the sequence of events as to how the offending truck hit the motorcycle while being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The deposition of claimant is duly supported by mechanical inspection report, site plan and other documents available Petition no. 722/2017 page 7 of 22 Sunil Kumar Vs. Sarvesh Kumar & Ors.
in the chargesheet, as detailed supra. The FIR was lodged on the statement of driver of the motorcycle namely Narender. Conclusion has been arrived at by the police in Section 173 Cr.PC Report and R1 Driver was chargesheeted for commission of offences punishable under section 279/337/338 IPC.
21.While opening his submission it is vehemently argued by Ld. Counsel for the insurance company that in case the compensation is awarded to the victim, they deserved a right of recovery in so far as according to the permit of the offending truck, it is allowed to carry petroleum products. It is submitted that although the insurance policy does not contain any reference in this regard and R1 Driver was having a valid licence to drive a general Heavy Goods Vehicle. Furthermore there is nothing on record to show that at the time of accident the truck in question was loaded with any hazardous material. Copy of the Seizure Memo and the Superdarinama of the offending vehicle filed with Section 173 Cr.PC Report are totally silent about carrying of any hazardous material at the time of accident. Moreover the offending vehicle is a simple goods truck and not a truck which has a cylindrical Petroleum Container. Although it is painted "Bharat Gas" on its body but in the absence of any proof that gas cylinders were actually loaded therein, it cannot be said that R1 was not authorized to drive the truck.
22.Furthermore mere absence of endorsement on the Driving Licence of R1 can be at the most be said to be, a technical violation of MV Act. The policy is silent on this aspect and the Exception Clause available in the policy titled:
"The Policy does not Cover" too does not contain any such Petition no. 722/2017 page 8 of 22 Sunil Kumar Vs. Sarvesh Kumar & Ors.
stipulation for not covering such vehicles.
23.It is a settled legal position that while deciding a petition u/s 166 of the M.V. Act, the Claims Tribunal has to decide negligence on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Reference in this regard is made to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kaushnumma Begum and Others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC,wherein it was held that the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of the driver of motor vehicle involved in the accident is of secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would make the petition maintainable u/s 166 &140 of the M.V Act.
24.The law to this effect declared in Minu B Mehto Vs. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan (1977) 2 SC 441 was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Meena Variyal 2007 (5) SCC 428, which has been followed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a recent case, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Devki & Ors., MAC APP 165/2013 decided on 29.02.2016.
25.The MLC issued by Rathi Hospital as also J P Narayan Apex Trauma Centre at AIIMS also show that claimant was victim of Road Traffic Accident and had suffered crush injuries.
26.As discussed supra, the MLCs, the Site Plan, the Mechanical Inspection Report and deposition of PWs as also DAR and Section 173 Cr.PC Report clearly shows that R1 Driver Sarvesh Kumar was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused injuries to the claimant.
27.On the basis of above observations and material found on record, Petition no. 722/2017 page 9 of 22 Sunil Kumar Vs. Sarvesh Kumar & Ors.
Issue no. 1 is answered in favour of the claimant and against the respondents.
28. Findings on Issue no. 2:
ii Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
In view of decision of issue no. 1 in favour of petitioner/claimant is entitled to seek compensation.
Computation of compensation
29.In Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar & Another (2011) 1 SCC 343, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down general principles for computation of compensation in injury cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced as under:
5 The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act", for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his 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.
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.
Petition no. 722/2017 page 10 of 22 Sunil Kumar Vs. Sarvesh Kumar & Ors.
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-Pecuniary Damages (general damages)
(iv) Damages to 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 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.
Pecuniary Damages
30. Expenses relating to Treatment, Hospitalization and Medicines As regards the medical bills, the claimant Sunil Kumar has mentioned that he has incurred medical expenses worth Rs.50,000/- on his treatment and the bills for the same have been filed on record. There is no reason to doubt credibility of these medical bills. Accordingly, he is entitled to Rs.50,000/- towards Expenses relating to Treatment, Hospitalization and Medicines. Expenses towards Conveyance and Food (special diet):
31.According to treatment record filed, the petitioner have incurred expenditure on transportation for making visit to the hospitals and clinics. He would have also required special diet during treatment and recovery. In the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that an amount of Rs. 60,000/- towards Special Diet and Rs.50,000/- towards Conveyance would be just and fair Petition no. 722/2017 page 11 of 22 Sunil Kumar Vs. Sarvesh Kumar & Ors.
compensation to the petitioner.
Attendant Charges
32.Though the petitioner has not produced on record any document to show employment of any attendant in DTC vs. Lalit, AIR 1981 Delhi 558, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that the victim is entitled to compensation even if no attendant is hired as some family member renders gratuitous services.
33.It is stated by claimant/injured that he had to also engage a permanent attendant at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month for whole life. But no proof qua the same has been filed on record. Since it is a case of amputation and 100% permanent disability he definitely needs an attendant for whole of his life for doing day-to-day activities. PW2 Dr. Naresh Chandra, HOD Ortho, GGS Hospital has proved the disability certificate issued by the Board with a report that victim suffered 98% permanent locomotor disability on both his upper limbs vide report Ex.PW2/A he stated that victim is unable to do any activity by both upper limbs on account of amputation of both hands above elbow and would require a permanent attendant to assist.
34.As such it would be appropriate to draw the analogy so as to calculate the cost of attendant of whole life by applying minimum wages of a semi-skilled worker akin to a nursing attendant from the date of accident with multiplier appropriate to his age. As such he is entitled for Rs.31,74,768/- (Rs.14,698 x12 x18, where Rs.14,698/- are minimum wages of semi-skilled worker, '18' is multiplier on account of age of the victim, since he would need an attendant during the entire biological life injuries suffered due to accident) towards Attendant charges.
Petition no. 722/2017 page 12 of 22 Sunil Kumar Vs. Sarvesh Kumar & Ors.
Loss of Future Earning due to Permanent Disability:
35.In Raj Kumar (Supra) broad criteria for assessment of permanent disability for ascertaining the purpose of future loss of earning was discussed and Hon'ble Apex Court laid down step by step procedure for assessment of disability and for ascertainment to the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity. Relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced as under:
12.Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so, the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence:
(I) Whether the disablement is permanent or temporary;
(ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement;
(iii) If the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered by the person.
If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity.
13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The tribunal has to first ascertain what activities of the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of 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 is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) Whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions so that he Petition no. 722/2017 page 13 of 22 Sunil Kumar Vs. Sarvesh Kumar & Ors.
continue to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood.
PW2 is Dr. Naresh Chandra, HOD Ortho, GGS Hospital. He proved the disability certificate issued by the Board with a report that victim suffered 98% permanent locomotor disability on both his upper limbs vide report Ex.PW2/A he stated that victim is unable to do any activity by both upper limbs on account of amputation of both hands above elbow.
36.The disability certificate issued by Handicap Board, Government Hospital, Jhajjar shows that he had suffered 100% permanent disability. The victim was referred to a Board for externally powered Trans Humeral Prosthesis Hand, Wrist Unit, Mechanical Elbow, Connector block, Silicon Glove and other related items. The report reveals that Trans Humeral Elbow Prothesis costs Rs.3,00,000/- for a person who is aged more than 12 years.
37.For a worker, physical health in general and functional ability of all the four limbs in particular are major factors to determine his employability. With 100% permanent disability in relation to his both lower limbs and the whole body, considering the percentage of permanent physical disability of the body part involved I assess the functional disability of petitioner in the present case to be at least 50%. Therefore, loss of earning on account of permanent disability is assessed as:
Rs.24,500 x 12 = Rs.2,94,000/- (annual income of the deceased) Rs.2,94,000-Rs.2,200 = Rs.2,91,800/-
(Rs.2200/- is 5% income tax as per income tax slab for the concerned year) Rs.2,91,800+Rs.1,45,900(50% future prospects)=Rs.4,37,700/-
( Rs.1,45,900 are 50% future prospects of Rs. 2,91,800 ) Petition no. 722/2017 page 14 of 22 Sunil Kumar Vs. Sarvesh Kumar & Ors.
Rs.4,37,700 x 18 x 50% = Rs.39,39,300/-
('18' is multiplier and 50% is permanent disability) He is entitled for Rs. 39,39,300/- towards Loss of Earning due to Permanent Disability and Rs.3,00,000/- as per report of Prosthesis Board at Rehabilitation Department VMMC & Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. Accordingly, he is entitled for Rs.42,39,300/- towards Loss of Future Earning due to Permanent Disability. Non-Pecuniary Damages (General Damages) Pain, Sufferings & Loss of Amenities
38.While discussing the criteria to ascertain the compensation for pain and sufferings by victim of vehicular accident, observations of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Satya Narain vs. Jai Kisan, FAO No: 709/02, date of decision: 02.02.2007 can be considered:
12. On account of pain and suffering, suffice would it be to note that it is difficult to measure pain and suffering in terms of a money value.
However, compensation which has to be paid must bear some objectives co-relation with the pain and suffering.
13. The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering would be:
(a) Nature of injury.
(b) Body part affected
(c) Duration of the treatment In Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand Civil Appeal No. 735 of 2020 considering 100% disability Hon'ble Supreme Court had awarded Rs. 15,00,000/- under this head.
39.Applying the above criteria to the facts of the present case where petitioner/ injured was young boy of 24 years and had suffered amputation of both hands above elbow, I am of the opinion that an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- would be just and fair compensation for Pain, Sufferings and Loss of Amenities suffered by the petitioner as consequences of injury.
Petition no. 722/2017 page 15 of 22
Sunil Kumar Vs. Sarvesh Kumar & Ors.
Awarded Interest
In case title Benson George Vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Civil APP 1540 of 2022 decided on 25.02.2022 Hon'ble Supreme Court while maintaining that the injured is entitled to reasonable interest of the compensation amount not only during the pendency of the case but also post the award in case of delay in payment awarded interest @ 6% per annum on the award amount interest 6% pendtlite and interest of 7.5% per annum in case of non-payment within 4 weeks.
In this case, considering the same, witness is awarded interest @ 6% per annum and 7.5% per annum in case of non-payment within 30 days.
40.In the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal award compensation as tabulated hereunder:-
Sr. Heads of Compensation Amount
No.
1. Expenses relating to Rs.50,000/-
treatment, hospitalization and
medicines
2. Expenses towards conveyance Rs.50,000/-
3. Expenses towards food Rs.60,000/-
(special diet)
4. Attendant charges Rs.31,74,768/-
5. Loss of Future Earning due to Rs.42,39,300/-
Permanent Disability
6. Pain and Suffering Rs.12,00,000/-
Total Rs.87,74,068/-
Accordingly, total compensation is assessed as Rs.87,74,068/- plus interest @ 6% i.e. Rs.25,75,970/- i.e amounting to Rs.1,13,50,038/- in total.
Relief:
In view of about findings on Issues no. 1 & 2, I award an amount of Rs.1,13,50,038/- as total compensation to the claimant which include Petition no. 722/2017 page 16 of 22 Sunil Kumar Vs. Sarvesh Kumar & Ors.
interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of DAR on 13.10.2017 till its realization. Amount of interim award, if any paid, be deducted from the compensation amount. Liability and Mode of payment and disbursement:
41.As such R1 Sarvesh Kumar being Driver of the offending Truck, R2 Surender Kumar being owner of the offending Truck and R3 Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company are liable to pay the above award amount of Rs.1,13,50,038/-. R1 Driver and R2 Owner and R3 Insurance Company are directed to deposit the award amount of Rs.1,13,50,038/- within 30 days from the date of this Award by way of NEFT or RTGS mode in the account of this Tribunal maintained with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (account holder's nameMotor Accident Claims Tribunal 02 West, A/C No. 40714429271, IFSC Code SBIN0000726) under intimation to the claimants and this Tribunal in terms of the format for remittance of compensation as provided in Divisional Manager Vs. Rajesh, 2016 SCC Online Mad. 1913 (and reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the orders dated 16.03.2021 and 16.11.2021 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors) along with interest @ 6% per annum, failing which it will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum for the period of delay.
42.Out of the total award amount of Rs.1,13,50,038/-, 10% of award amount i.e. Rs.11,35,004/- be released to the petitioner in his saving bank account in nationalised bank immediately.
43.In order to avoid the compensation money being frittered away, balance amount of Rs.1,02,15,034/- would be kept in 300 monthly Petition no. 722/2017 page 17 of 22 Sunil Kumar Vs. Sarvesh Kumar & Ors.
FDRs for a total period of 25 years with cumulative interest as mentioned above in accordance with the order dt. 07.12.2018 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J R Midha in Rajesh Tyagi & Ors vs Jaibir Singh & Ors in FAO No.842/2003 as per details mentioned herein.
44.The following conditions are imposed with respect to the fixed deposits:
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint name (s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody.
However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by the bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall freeze the debit card(s) of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect, that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause(g) above.
45.Petitioner/claimant shall open an account in SBI, Tis Hazari Branch Delhi. Manager of the Bank shall comply and release the reward amount to the petitioner in terms of the award.
46. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Petition no. 722/2017 page 18 of 22 Sunil Kumar Vs. Sarvesh Kumar & Ors.
Authority in view of Judgment titled as Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. passed in FAO no.842/2003 dated 08.01.2021. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVII as per the directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case.
47. A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 11.10.2022.
48. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost.
49. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02.09.2022 (Surinder S. Rathi) PO MACT-II (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/02.09.2022 Petition no. 722/2017 page 19 of 22 Sunil Kumar Vs. Sarvesh Kumar & Ors.
FORM-IV B SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE
1. Date of accident : - 11.06.2017
2. Name of the injured : --- Sunil Kumar
3. Age of the injured : --- 28 years(present)
4. Occupation of the injured: ---- Data Entry Operator
5. Income of the injured : ---- Rs.24,500 per month
6. Nature of injury : --- Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken : --- 11.06.2017
8. Period of treatment : ---- Whole life
9. Whether any permanent disability: 100% Permanent Disability If yes, give details :
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure relating to Rs.50,000/-
treatment, hospitalization and
medicines
(ii) Expenditure towards Rs. 50,000/-
conveyance
(iii) Expenditure towards food Rs.60,000/-
(special diet)
(iv) Attendant charges Rs.31,74,768/-
(v) Loss of earning during period NA
of treatment
Petition no. 722/2017 page 20 of 22
Sunil Kumar Vs. Sarvesh Kumar & Ors.
(vii) Any other loss which may NA
require any special treatment
or aid to the injured for the
rest of his life
12. Non-Pecunicary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and Nil
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering and loss of Rs.12,00,000/-
amenities
(iii) Disfiguration N.A.
(iv) Loss of marriage prospects N.A.
(v) Loss of earning, N.A
inconvenience, hardships,
disappointment, frustration,
mental stress, dejectment and
unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(I) Percentage of disability NA
assessed and nature of
disability as permanent or
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N.A.
expectation of life span on
account of disability
(iii) Loss of future earning due Rs.42,39,300/-
to permanent disability
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.87,74,068/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 6% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the date Rs.25,75,970/-
of award
17. Total amount including Rs.1,13,50,038/-
interest
Petition no. 722/2017 page 21 of 22
Sunil Kumar Vs. Sarvesh Kumar & Ors.
18. Award amount released Mentioned in the award
19. Award amount kept in FDRs Mentioned in the award
20. Mode of disbursement of the Mentioned in the award award amount to the claimant
(s).
21. Next date for compliance of Mentioned in the award the award.
(Surinder S. Rathi)
PO MACT-II (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/02.09.2022
Petition no. 722/2017 page 22 of 22
Sunil Kumar Vs. Sarvesh Kumar & Ors.