Delhi District Court
Ritu (I)(Fir64/17/Kotwali) vs Priya Dutt on 24 January, 2025
DLCT010125492017
Presented on : 29-08-2017
Registered on : 29-08-2017
Decided on : 24-01-2005
Duration : 07 Years 01 Month
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF PRESIDING OFFICER-MACT-02,
(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI PRESIDED
OVER BY DR. PANKAJ SHARMA
MACT NO.866/17
SMT. RITU
S/o Sh. Ravinder Kumar
R/o H.No. 713, Block Y,
Near 901 Bus Stand,
Mangol Puri, N-Block,
Saraswati Vihar, Delhi-110083.` .......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. SMT. PRIYA DUTT
W/o Sh. Sudhanshu Sinha
R/o H.No. 102, Bhai Parmanand Colony,
Kingsway Camp, Delhi-110009.(Driver).
2. SH. SUDHANSHU SINHA
S/o Late Sunil Kumar Sinha
R/o H.No. 102, Bhai Parmanand Colony,
Kingsway Camp, Delhi-110009. (Owner).
.....Respondents
The particulars as per Form-XVII, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) are as under:-
1. Date of the accident 18.04.2017
2. Date of filing of Form-I - First Accident Report N.A. MACT No. 867/17 Ritu Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No.Digitally 1/26signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.01.24 14:50:22 +0530 (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the victim(s) N.A.
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Driver N.A.
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Owner N.A.
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim Accident N.A. Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form-VIB N.A. from the Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - Detailed Accident 29.08.2017 Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on NA the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer NA by the Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the NA Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on NA the part of the Designated officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the petitioner(s) to the offer NA of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 24.01.2025 MACT No. 867/17 Ritu Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 2/26 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.01.24 14:50:25 +0530
15. Whether the petitioner (s) was/were directed to Yes open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) was/were 11.10.2022 directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) produced the 27.07.2023 passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of the H.No. 102, Bhai Claimant(s).
Parmanand Colony, Kingsway Camp, Delhi-
110009
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank YES account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the Yes time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
AWARD/JUDGMENT
FACTUAL POSITION AND PLEADINGS
MACT No. 867/17 Ritu Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 3/26
PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.24 14:50:28 +0530
1. This is a remand back matter. Vide order dated 02/12/2024, the Hon'ble High Court, New Delhi, directed this Tribunal with the following directions:-
"7. Though the ground on which the remand is sought, is not on firm foundation, but in the interest of justice, the impugned Award is set aside and remanded back with two opportunities tot he appellants to adduce their evidence, subject to the condition of deposit of the entire compensation alongwith interest within one month.''
2. Brief facts of the present case are that this DAR was filed on 29.08.2017 by the Investigating Officer in the presence of the parties. The DAR is related to a motor vehicular accident dated 18.04.2017 in which one Smt. Ritu W/o Sh. Ravinder Kumar (hereinafter referred to as "petitioner") sustained grievous injuries. Subsequent to the filing of said DAR, the present petition was filed on 07.02.2020 U/s 166 r/w Section 140 of M.V. Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- in respect of injuries sustained by petitioner in a road traffic accident which took place on 18.04.2017 at about 07.15 PM at a spot Outer Ring Road towards Monkey Bridge Ring road Siade falling within the jurisdiction of PS Kotwali. As per this petition, at the relevant time the petitioner alongwith her daughter were sitting on the pillion seat of motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-12SA-9487 which was being driver by her husband at a normal speed and on his correct portion of the road with observing the traffic rules. She further stated that she was going towards her residence from Deepak Memorial Hospital after receiving illness news of her father and when they reached at Y- Point Seelam Garh behind Red Fort and took turn from Outer MACT No. 867/17 Ritu Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 4/26 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.01.24 14:50:32 +0530 Ring Road towards Monkey Bridge Ring Road side suddenly a WagonR Car bearing registration no. DL-9CM-6193 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") which was being driven by its driver/ R-1 at a very high speed, rashly and negligently without blowing any horn in contravention of the traffic rules came from Shanti Van Ring Road side and hit motorcycle alongwith petitioner and her husband and daughter with a great force. As a result of this forceful impact petition alongwith motorcycle and her husband and daughter fell down on the road and sustained grievous multiple injuries all parts of their body. It is further stated that after the accident petitioner alongwith his wife and daughter were removed to Sushruta Trauma Centre, 9, Metcalf Road, Delhi from the accident place where the concerned doctor prepared the MLC of the petitioner and his wife and daughter and diagnosed to the petitioner and his wife and daughter. It is further stated that after the discharge from the said hospital the petitioner was continuously OPD patient in the various hospital. An FIR No. 64/17 PS Kotwali U/s 279/337/338 IPC was registered by the police. As per petition, the petitioner was 31 years old at the time of accident and was self employed and was earning Rs. 17,000/- per month. R-1 is the driver of the offending vehicle and R-2 is the owner of the offending vehicle. 2.1 Joint written statement was filed by R-1 and R-2 wherein it is stated that the offending vehicle has been falsely implicated by the police as no accident, as alleged in the petition, ever took place. On merits, the contents of petition have been denied in toto.
MACT No. 867/17 Ritu Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 5/26 PANKAJ Digitally signed by
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.24
14:50:35 +0530
ISSUES
3. Vide order dated 04.10.2018, the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal :-
1. Whether the petitioner Ms. Ritu suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 18/04/2017 at about 07.15 P.M. involving Car bearing registration No. DL-9CM-6193 driven by the Respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently and owned by the Respondent No.2?OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
EVIDENCE
4. The petitioner examined herself as PW-1 in support of his claim. The petitioner filed affidavit Ex. PW1/A wherein she described the occurrence of incident in line with the facts mentioned in Para 1 of this award. She deposed that he sustained grievous injuries at the relevant time. She further deposed that at the relevant time, she was 31 years old and was self employed and was earning Rs.17,000/- per month. She further deposed that she has spent Rs.98,658- on medical treatment, Rs. 60,000/-
on special diet, Rs. 40,000/- on conveyance and Rs. 20,000/- on attendant. She further deposed that due to injuries she has not been able to do her work six months due to the said accident. Petitioner has relied upon the following documents viz:-
''Ex. PW1/1 (Colly) Original discharge summary and OPD Cards/ medical records;MACT No. 867/17 Ritu Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 6/26 Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.01.24 14:50:39 +0530 Ex. PW1/2 (Colly) are original medical bills; Ex. PW1/3 (OSR) is photocopy of Aadhar Card of PW-1;
Ex. PW1/4 (OSR) is photocopy of DL of PW-1;
Ex.PW1/5 is DAR (Colly);
4.1 She was cross-examined by both the respondents. In her cross-examination she deposed that she is a housewife. She further deposed that in normal time, she used to do tailoring and stitching work at home. She further deposed that on 18/04/2017, she came from Deepak Memorial Hospital, Preet Vihar, Delhi alongwith her husband and her daughter aged around 05 years after looking after her father who was in ICU. She further deposed that when she reached at Y Point, Salim Garh behind Red Fort. She denied the suggestion that the alleged incident occurred due to the disbalance of motorcycle because three persons were sitting on the motorcycle which is against the traffic rules. She denied the suggestion that the accident took place due to negligence of her husband because three persons were sitting on the motorcycle which is against the traffic rules as it disbalanced motorcycle of her husband. She further deposed that many public persons gathered on the alleged accident but none was made witness to the accident. She further deposed that her statement was recorded by the police in Trauma Centre. She further deposed that she was discharged alongwith her husband and daughter from Sushruta Trauma Centre after treatment between 10-11 P.M. She further deposed MACT No. 867/17 Ritu Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 7/26 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.01.24 14:50:42 +0530 that after that no statement was recorded by the police except aforementioned statement. She further deposed that after getting treatment from Sushruta Trauma Centre, she was advised to come next day for further treatment but she did not go there for further treatment. She further deposed that she remained admitted in Jeevan Hospital from 22/04/2017 to 29/04/2017. She denied the suggestion that the accident was caused due to negligence of her husband or that the respondents had helped her. She further deposed that some unknown persons in a car helped them and took us to Sushruta Trauma Centre. She further denied the suggestion that the claim filed by her is bogus and false or that she was negligent. She further denied the suggestion that the vehicle belonging to the Respondents No. 1 & 2 was never met in the alleged accident.
5. PE was closed by petitioner on 23.06.2022
6. R-1 examined herself as R1W1 in her defence. She deposed vide her affidavit Ex. R1W1/A. She was cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for petitioner. In her cross- examination she deposed that it is correct that pertaining to this FIR, the criminal case is going on before Ld. MM where she is facing trial. She further deposed that no revision was preferred against the order of charge passed by Ld. MM. She further deposed that she has not made any complaint against the IO regarding false implication of the her in the instant FIR. She denied the suggestion that the accident was an outcome of her MACT No. 867/17 Ritu Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 8/26 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.01.24 14:50:46 +0530 negligent driving. She further denied the suggestion hat the spot where the accident occurred was not having heavy traffic at the time of accident.
6.1 R-1 further examined one Sh. Rohit Gupta S/o Sh. Suresh Kumar Guptaas R1W2 in her defence. He deposed that on the day of accident, he was on his motorcycle coming from Noida and going towards Burari. He further deposed while he was on Y-crossing before Hanuman Mandir, he saw that one motorcycle got disbalanced and the motorcyclist fell in front of Wagon-R being driven by respondent no. 1. He further deposed that it was 07.00 PM in the evening and so far as he recollects, the Wagon-R did not hit the motorcyclist and he got down from his motorcycle for helping the motorcyclist who fell down on the road. He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for petitioner. In his cross-examination he deposed that he has come to Court for deposing at the instance of Respondent No.1 and he has not been called by the police during investigation. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot at the time of accident or that he was not the witness of the accident. He further denied the suggestion that he was not called by the police or he was never the witness to the accident in question. He further denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely in order to help the respondent no. 1.
ARGUMENTS AND FINDINGS MACT No. 867/17 Ritu Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 9/26 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.01.24 14:50:51 +0530
7. Oral submissions were advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties.
8. I have perused the record and my issue wise findings is as under:-
ISSUE NO.1 ''Whether the petitioner Ms. Ritu suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 18/04/2017 at about 07.15 P.M. involving Car bearing registration No. DL-9CM-6193 driven by the Respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently and owned by the Respondent No.2?OPP.''.
9. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of MACT No. 867/17 Ritu Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 10 /26 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.01.24 14:50:54 +0530 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
10. As already discussed above, the petitioner examined herself as PW-1 in order to prove the factual averments regarding the occurrence of accident. PW-1 has clearly and categorically stated that at the relevant date, time and place, she sustained grievous injuries. She further deposed that at the relevant time, she was 31 years old and was self employed and was earning Rs.17,000/- and due to injuries she has not been able to do her work six months due to the said accident. She categorically stated that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of R-1.The petitioner claims compensation on account of special pecuniary damage relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicine, transportation, diet, loss of earning during the period, he was injured, loss of earning during the period of treatment, loss of future earning on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, non-pecuniary damages, damages for pain suffering and trauma, loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life. PW-1 was cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for both the respondents. There is nothing on record which betrays any falsity or untruth in the oral testimony of PW-1. As such, it could be safely held that the oral testimony of PW-1 is reliable and trustworthy.
11. The very fact that R-1 has already been chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279/337/338 IPC & & 146/196 M.V.Act in the above criminal case/FIR in itself is a strong circumstance to support the above MACT No. 867/17 Ritu Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 11/26 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.01.24 14:50:57 +0530 oral testimony of PW1 and the case of petitioner on this issue. The copies of FIR, Chargesheet, Site plan, Mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle, MLC, Seizure Memos and Arrest Memo of R-1 also corroborate the testimony of PW1.
12. Besides the above, R-1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the depositions being made by PW1 regarding the above accident and its manner etc., but he has not done so. Therefore, an adverse inference on this aspect is also required to be drawn against the respondents in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.7
13. In view of the above, it could be safely assumed that at the relevant time, R-1 was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner in a high speed while the petitioner was going on motorcycle and hit the motorcycle of the petitioner at the relevant time. In the absence of any averment or evidence regarding any mechanical defect in the offending vehicle or any material depicting any negligent/sudden act or omission on the part of the petitioner, the only inference possible in the given facts and circumstances is that of neglect and default on the part of R-1 in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is constrained to hold R-1 guilty of gross negligence and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time.
MACT No. 867/17 Ritu Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 12/26 Digitally signedPANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.01.24 14:51:00 +0530
14. In view of the medical treatment documents placed on record by the petitioner, no dispute is left regarding the nature of injuries sustained by him in the above accident.
15. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal holds that the petitioner suffered grievous injuries on his person on account of negligence and default of R-1 while driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. This issue thus stands decided against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner.
ISSUE NO. 2"Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
16. As the issue no.1 has been proved in affirmative and in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner has become entitled to be compensated for the injuries suffered in the above accident, but the computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided.
17. In terms of provisions contained in Section 168 of the MV Act the compensation which is to be awarded by this tribunal is required to be 'just'. In the injury cases a claimant is entitled to two different kinds of compensations i.e. Pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary damages. The "pecuniary damages" or special damages are those damages which are awarded and designed to make good the losses which are capable of being calculated in terms of money and the object of awarding these MACT No. 867/17 Ritu Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 13/26 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.01.24 14:51:04 +0530 damages is to indemnify the claimant for the expenses which he had already incurred or is likely to incur in respect of the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The "non-pecuniary" or general damages are those damages which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. The pecuniary or special damages generally include the expenses incurred by the claimant towards his treatment, special diet, conveyance, cost of nursing/ attendant, loss of income/earning capacity etc. and the non- pecuniary damages generally include the compensation for the mental or physical shock, pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, marriage prospects and disfiguration etc. The above categories falling under both the heads of compensation are not exhaustive in nature but only illustrative. It is also necessary to state here that no amount of money or compensation can put the injured/claimant exactly in the same position or place where he was before the accident and an effort is to be made only to reasonably compensate him or to put him almost in the same place or position where he could have been if the alleged accident had not taken place and this compensation is to be assessed in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The object of compensating him is also not to reward him or to make him rich in an unjust manner. It is also well settled that the 'just' compensation to be awarded to the claimant has to be calculated objectively and it may involve some guess work in calculating the different amounts which the claimant may be entitled under the different heads of compensation. Further, in case of permanent disability, 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.
MACT No. 867/17 Ritu Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 14/26 PANKAJ Digitally signed by
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.24
14:51:07 +0530
Reference in this regard can be made on some of important judgments on the subject like the judgment in the case of R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 755, Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2010) 10 SCC 254 and Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343.
18. In light of the above legal propositions, the amount of compensation which can be considered to be 'just' in the opinion of this tribunal shall be as under:-
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses
19. The petitioner has placed on judicial file his medical papers and medical bills, which are Ex. PW1/1 (Colly) & Ex.PW1/2 (Colly). As per the medical bills Ex.PW1/2 (Colly), the petitioner has incurred expenses to the tune of Rs.98,658/-. In the absence of any contest to the said documents (placed on record by the petitioner), the petitioner is held entitled to an amount of Rs.98,658/- under this head.
(ii) Pain and Suffering
20. As per medical documents, the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries It is not possible to quantify the compensation admissible to petitioner for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which he actually suffered because of the above injuries, but as stated above, an effort has to be made to compensate him for the same in a just and reasonable manner. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the injuries MACT No. 867/17 Ritu Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 15/26 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.01.24 14:51:11 +0530 suffered by petitioner and duration of the treatment taken by him etc., an amount of Rs.25,000/- is being awarded to him towards pain and sufferings during the said period of his treatment and immobility. Thus, she is awarded a total amount of Rs. 25,000/- under this head.
(iii) Loss of actual earnings
21. In her affidavit Ex. PW1/A, the petitioner stated that she was self employed and was earning Rs. 17,000/- per month. However, the petitioner has not placed on record any document to substantiate her claim as to her monthly earnings. In the absence of any proof, this Tribunal finds it appropriate to assess the monthly income of petitioner on the basis of minimum wages applicable in Delhi at the time of accident (i.e.18.04.2017 ). The minimum wages payable at the relevant time were Rs. 16,468/- per month for a Matriculate Person. As per medical record Ex. PW1/1(colly) and medical bills Ex. PW1/2(colly), the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries, it would not be inappropriate to assume that the petitioner would not have been unable to resume her work for a period of 06 months at least. As such, the petitioner is entitled to be granted a sum of Rs.98,808/- (Rs. 16,468/- X 6) towards loss of actual earnings. This amount is granted to the petitioner under this head.
(iv) Conveyance, Attendant Charges and Special Diet
22. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the extent of permanent physical disability and the MACT No. 867/17 Ritu Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 16/26Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.01.24 14:51:17 +0530 extended period of medical treatment, the petitioner is granted a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each under these heads.
(v) Loss of amenities of life
23. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and the extended period of medical treatment, the petitioner is granted a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each under these heads.
Issue No.3/Relief
24. The petitioner is thus entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,22,466/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Six Only)(Rs. 98,658/-/- + Rs. 25,000/- + Rs.98,808/- + Rs. 25,000/- + Rs.25,000/- + Rs.25,000/-+ Rs.25,000/-) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR i.e. 29.08.2017. Since no interim compensation has been awarded, therefore no deduction is applicable.
RELEASE
25. On 27.07.2023 statement of petitioner qua financial needs and requirements was recorded in terms of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 32 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. As per his statement, her household expenditure is Rs.40,000/- per month. Photocopy of the passbook of the bank account of the petitioner maintained with State Bank of India, Branch Mangol Puri, Delhi MACT No. 867/17 Ritu Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 17/26 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.01.24 14:51:25 +0530 was also placed on record at that time. Photocopies of Aadhar Card and PAN Card were also placed on record by the injured, apart from two coloured photographs of the petitioner.
26. Out of the awarded amount, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Thousand Only) is directed to be kept with State Bank of India, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in MACAD in the form of 15 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 15 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 35, 36 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in his savings/MACT Claims Bank Account bearing No. 41648428264 IFSC Code - SBIN0004841 (PAN NO. AYDPR3345L) maintained with SBI, Branch - Mangol Puri, Delhi on monthly basis. The remaining amount of Rs.2,37,712/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Twelve Only) is also directed to be released into her above said account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the petitioner.
26.1 As per the details submitted by respondents as well as by the Bank Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, the respondents have already deposited a sum of Rs. 5,47,700/- in PO MACT-02 (C ) Account pursuant to the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The remaining excess amount be MACT No. 867/17 Ritu Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 18/26 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.01.24 14:51:30 +0530 released to the respondents as and when they approach the concerned Bank for release of the same.
27. The Bank(s) shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the petitioner(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the petitioner(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s). The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the SBI, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 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 petitioner(s). The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credit by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the petitioner(s) near the place of their residence. No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of this Tribunal.
LIABILITY
28. In RE, R-1 appeared as R1W1, her account is that a motorbike suddenly appeared before her and she tried to avoid the collusion by applying brakes. However, It is pertinent to mention that she has been chargesheeted by the police after due investigation and she has not preferred any revision against the order of Ld. MM. Also, she has not filed any complaint against IO regarding false implication. The standard of proof as required in MACT petition is balance of probability and in the present MACT No. 867/17 Ritu Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 19/26 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.01.24 14:51:34 +0530 facts and circumstances the said standard has been met, therefore, the evidence of R-1 will not help the plea of R-1 regarding false implication. Accordingly, same stands rejected.
29. A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
30. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
31. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 MACT No. 867/17 Ritu Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 20/26 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.01.24 14:51:38 +0530 regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed byPANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA Announced in the open court SHARMA Date: 2025.01.24 14:51:44 +0530 on this 24.01.2025 (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA) PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL) DELHI FORM - XVI, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE
1. Date of accident : 18.04.2017
2. Name of the injured : Ms.Ritu
3. Age of the injured : 37 years
4. Occupation of the injured : Self Employed
5. Income of the injured : Rs. 16,468/-
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by injured : Different Hospitals
8. Period of Hospitalization : NIL
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details : YES MACT No. 867/17 Ritu Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 21/26 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.01.24 14:51:50 +0530
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss (I) Expenditure on treatment Rs.98,658/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.25,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 25,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 25,000/-
(v) Cost of artificial limb NIL (vi) Loss of earning capacity NIL (vii) Loss of Income Rs. 98,808/- MACT No. 867/17 Ritu Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 22/26 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.01.24 14:51:55 +0530 (viii) Any other loss which may NIL require any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life 12. Non-Pecuniary Loss: (i) Compensation for mental NIL and physical shock (ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 25,000/- (iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.,25,000/- (iv) Disfiguration NIL (v) Loss of marriage prospects NIL MACT No. 867/17 Ritu Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 23/26 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.01.24 14:52:02 +0530 (vi) 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 N.A
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
N.A.
(iii) Percentage of loss of
earning capacity in relation
to disability
MACT No. 867/17 Ritu Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 24/26 Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.01.24
14:52:06
+0530
(iv) Loss of future income - N.A.
(Income x% Earning
Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL Rs.3,22,466/-
COMPENSATION
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the Rs.2,15,246/-
date of award
17. Total amount including Rs.5,37,712/-
interest
18. Award amount released Rs.2,37,712/-
19. Award amount kept in Rs.3,00,000/-
FDRs MACT No. 867/17 Ritu Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 25/26 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.01.24 14:52:09 +0530
20. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award the award amount to the claimant(s).
21. Next date for compliance of NA the award.
CONCLUSION:-
1. As per award dated 24.01.2025.
Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.01.24 14:52:12 +0530 (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA) PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL) DELHI/24.01.2025 MACT No. 867/17 Ritu Vs. Priya Dutt & Ors. Page No. 26/26 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.01.24 14:52:16 +0530