Delhi District Court
Dar- Veer Sain vs Rakesh Singh on 16 January, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH.SHAILENDER MALIK, PRESIDING
OFFICER: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-02,
SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
MACT No.1645/2016
Veer Sain
r/o No.29, Gali No.1,
Madina Masjid, Budh Vihar,
Mandoli. ....Petitioner
Versus
(1)Rakesh Singh
r/o H.No.322, Matrika Vihar,
Khera Colony, U.P.
(2)Rakesh Sharma
r/o H.No.366, Village Basi Khekra,
Baghpat, U.P.
(3)United India Insurance Company Ltd. ....Respondents
Date of Institution : 11.01.2016
Date of Arguments : 15.01.2024
Date of pronouncement : 16.01.2024
AWAR D
1. Proceedings in the present claim petition arises from filing of
DAR in FIR No.1135/2015 of PS Vivek Vihar. As per the facts emerging
from the DAR on 23.11.2015 injured/petitioner Veer Sain after closing his
shop at about 10 p.m. was going to his house on his scooter no.DL-5S-BH-
5948 and reached near Surya Nagar red light and reached Deepak Petrol
Pump and after getting filled petrol in his scooter from that petrol pump,
was going to his house. At that time one car bearing no.UP-17T-4431
which was allegedly being driven in a very high speed and in a rash and
MACT No.1645/2016 Page 1
negligent manner came from the side of Seemapuri border and struck the
scooter of the injured/ petitioner. Due to the impact injured's left leg was
crushed completely. He was taken to GTB Hospital. Thereafter was
transferred to Safdarjung Hospital Delhi.
2. On the complaint given by the injured the case was registered.
Upon investigation IO filed the DAR in the matter against respondent no.1
being driver cum owner of offending vehicle no.UP-17T-4431 as well as
respondent no.2/United India Insurance Company.
3. Reply to the DAR has been filed by respondent no.1 taking an
objection that petitioner has concealed material facts. It is stated that no
accident has taken place from respondent no.1 with his vehicle no.UP-17T-
4431 as alleged. It is pleaded that he has been falsely impleaded in FIR.
Facts and allegations have been completely denied. It is pleaded that
vehicle was insured with respondent no.2 company under insurance policy no.2227003114P106536233 from 24.11.2014 to 23.11.2015. It is further pleaded that respondent no.1 was having valid DL.
4. Respondent no.2/insurance company has not disputed that vehicle in question was insured under the above mentioned policy for third party risk. Insurance company however raised the issue with regard to authenticity of MLC No.5515/2015 of injured prepared at GTB Hospital. Contents of DAR and other facts have been denied. It is pleaded that insurance company is not liable to pay compensation in case of non compliance of any terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
5. On the basis of pleadings ld. predecessor of this Tribunal by order dated 12.04.2016 framed following issues :
(1)Whether respondent no.1 was driving vehicle bearing no.UP-
17T-4431 on 23.11.2015 at 10.15 pm at red light, near Deepak MACT No.1645/2016 Page 2 Petrol Pump, Surya Nagar, Delhi in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and hit against scooter bearing no. DL-5SBH- 5948 as a result its occupant namely petitioner Veer Sain fell down and sustained injuries? OPP (2)Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation, if so and for what amount? OPP (3)Relief.
6. On behalf of petitioner, petitioner Veer Sain has appeared in the witness box as PW1. PW2 is Vinod Singh from Max Hospital who proved the treatment record as well as medical expenses, PW3 is Gurpreet Singh, Legal Assistant from DCCWS and proved that injured Veer Sain was working in their Department as Salesman and proved the salary record of the petitioner.
7. No evidence has been led on behalf of the respondents.
8. I have heard Sh.Hunny Kaushik, ld. counsel for petitioner as well as Sh.S. Ghosh, ld. counsel for respondent no.3/insurance company. Issue No.1
9. It is the settled proposition of law that an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non. However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition based upon negligence. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. Reference may be made to the judgments titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sakshi Bhutani & Others., MAC APP. No. 550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012, Bimla Devi & Others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Others (2009) 13 SC 530, Parmeshwari v. Amirchand & MACT No.1645/2016 Page 3 Others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 & Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Others 2018, Law Suit (SC) 303.
10. In the present case PW1 injured Veer Sain has given the details of the manner in which accident had taken place. His deposition specifically states that while he was going back to his home after getting his scooter filled with petrol from petrol pump, respondent no.1 was driving Tavera car no.UP-17T-4431 in a rash and negligent manner and struck the scooter of PW1 due to which he received serious injuries as his left leg crushed completely.
11. PW1 was duly cross examined however nothing substantive came in the cross examination with regard to involvement, rash and negligent driving of vehicle no.UP-17T-4431 by respondent no.1. Beside the testimony of PW1, on this aspect perusal of the DAR shows that site plan, mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle as well as medical documents and notice u/s 133 M.V. Act served to respondent no.1 and his response, clearly establish that respondent no.1 drove offending vehicle no.UP-17T-4431 in rash and negligent manner resulting into causing of accident in which petitioner received grievous injuries. Issue accordingly decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents. Issue No.2
12. The scope of compensation in injury cases has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Mr. R.D. Hattangadi v. M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 AIR 755. The relevant extract is as under:
"Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are MACT No.1645/2016 Page 4 those which the victim has actually incurred and which is capable of being calculated in terms of money-, whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may, include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit upto the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non- pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit;
(iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, discomfort, disappointment, hardship, frustration and mental stress in life."
13. Further, in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & another (2011) 1 SCC 343, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India laid down general principles for computation of compensation in injury cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced as under:
4. The provisions 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 MACT No.1645/2016 Page 5 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.
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 earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment.
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-Pecuniary Damages (general damages)
(iv) Damages 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.
14. In the light of the aforementioned judgments, the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled shall be as under:-
MACT No.1645/2016 Page 6 PECUNIARY DAMAGES : Medical Expenses:
15. As per the evidence of PW1 immediately after the accident he was taken to GTB Hospital where he was medically examined and MLC was prepared, however thereafter he was transferred to Safdarjung Hospital. PW1 in his deposition states that he remained under treatment in that hospital for about one months time and discharged on 20.12.2015. Later he took the treatment in Max Health Care Super Speciality Hospital for his left leg/knee and also took the treatment in Krishna Hospital. As per PW1 he spent sum of Rs.7,70,995/- towards the medical treatment and stated that his treatment was still going on.
16. Since at the time of giving his affidavit of examination in chief, PW1 failed to furnish relevant medical bills/invoices, he filed additional affidavit of his evidence wherein he gave the details of his total bills of treatment which were exhibited as Ex.PW1/3. Beside the testimony of PW1, petitioner has also examined PW2 from Max Hospital who proved medical bills/bill summary as well as advance receipts collectively exhibited as Ex.PW2/A. In the evidence of PW1 petitioner has also proved that he suffered disability. Disability certificate is on the record as per which petitioner suffered disability to the extent of 67% with regard to his both lower limbs.
17. Perusal of all medical bills Ex.PW1/2 (colly.) and Ex.PW1/3 (colly.) show that a sum of Rs.8,28,180/- was spent by petitioner towards his medical expenses. Nothing contrary has come on record with regard to medical expenses incurred by petitioner. As such compensation for a sum of Rs.8,28,180/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
MACT No.1645/2016 Page 7 Loss of earning during treatment:
18. Petitioner (PW1) in his evidence testified that because of the accidental injuries he was admitted in GTB Hospital on 23.11.2015 and then he was transferred to Safdarjung Hospital and after about one month's treatment on 20.12.2015 he was discharged from Safdarjung Hospital. Petitioner also states that on 27.02.2016 he went to Max Healthcare, Super Specialty Hospital for treatment of his left leg/knee and as the treatment was lengthy, he was discharged and admitted again from time to time to save hospital expenses. PW1 also says that he was completely bed ridden and unable to perform his day to day work since the date of accident.
19. Claimant has claimed loss of income due to accidental injuries for period of four months. During cross-examination PW1 stated that at the time of accident he was working as a salesman. He also stated that he was not covered under DGHS scheme of Delhi Government and they do not have group insurance mediclaim/personal accident policy. He also stated that he is not covered under ESIC. PW1 also says that his medical bills have not been reimbursed from any source. Though he stated that he has family medi-claim policy issued by M/s Star Health & Allied Insurance Company Limited, however he has not received the reimbursement of his medical bills from the said company.
20. To prove his income, petitioner has also examined PW3 Gurpeet Singh, Legal Assistant with DCCWS who brought leave certificate of petitioner Veer Sain which is Ex.PW3/1 as per which petitioner was on leave with pay from 23.11.2015 to 20.02.2017. PW3 also says that petitioner was on leave without pay from 21.02.2017 to 06.06.2017. PW3 also proved salary statement of petitioner for the period November 2015 to January 2019 which is Ex.PW3/2.
MACT No.1645/2016 Page 8
21. Perusal of details of salary drawn by petitioner Ex.PW3/2 shows that his income in the month of November 2015 i.e. when accident in question took place, was Rs.27,459/- per month.
22. Petitioner has claimed that he remained on bed rest for four months and claimed loss of income during treatment for four months. From the perusal of medical documents including disability certificate dated 04.02.2020, leave certificate Ex.PW3/1 and salary statement Ex.PW3/2 of the petitioner, it is very much clear that petitioner suffered injuries on both of his lower limbs. So taking into consideration the multiple injuries suffered by the petitioner on both his legs and medical documents on record, this Tribunal is of considered view that petitioner is entitled for loss of earning for period of four months. As such petitioner is entitled for sum of Rs.1,09,836/- (Rs.27,459 X 4 months) under this head. Loss of future earning due to disability :
23. In case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 343, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India determined the broad criteria for assessment of permanent disability for ascertaining the purpose of future loss of earning and also 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:-
"9. 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 MACT No.1645/2016 Page 9 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.
10. 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 continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood."
....If doctor has given evidence about percentage of permanent disability, Tribunal will have to seek doctors opinion as to whether it is possible to deduce the corresponding functional permanent disability with reference to whole body and if so to what percentage.
MACT No.1645/2016 Page 10
13. We may now summarize the principles
discussed above:
(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 injured- claimant 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 percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors."
24. At the outset ld. counsel for the insurance company submits that petitioner is not entitled for any amount of compensation on the ground of loss of future prospects due to suffering of accidental injuries. It is submitted that since it is proved on the record that petitioner was a government employee and continued receiving salary and other service benefits. As such there has not been an loss to the future in his service avenues on account of suffering of accidental injuries. Sh. S.Ghosh, ld.
MACT No.1645/2016 Page 11 counsel for insurance company relied upon judgment of Apex Court in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Satish Chandra Sharma (Civil Appeal No.1579/2022 decided on 23.02.2022).
25. On the other hand ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that there is not distinction between any Government employee or other persons if the injured has suffered permanent disability. Ld. counsel for petitioner referred to ratio of Apex Court laid down in the judgment in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343 as well as recent judgment of Apex Court in Jithendran vs. New India Assurance Company Limited 2021 SCC OnLine 1836 as well as relied upon judgment of Delhi High Court in Gopi Chand Gupta vs. Mohd. Mohsim and ors. (MAC App. No.1140/2013 decided on 26.07.2022).
26. The judgment of Hon'ble Apex court in New India Assurance Company (supra) though mentions that injured in that case did not suffer any loss despite having 75% of disability. However such observation was given in the peculiar facts of that case and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the facts of that case noted that High Court had already increased the amount of compensation without any basis. Even Supreme Court in that case enhanced the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs. Therefore judgment as relied upon by ld. counsel for the insurance company does not lay down any guideline or criteria for universal application in case of injured being a Government Officer and therefore cannot be applied in the facts of the present case. More particularly when the loss of future prospects is not to be assessed only with regard to job of the petitioner. Even post retirement petitioner must have to suffer certain avenues because of permanent disability in relation to his both limbs. Therefore petitioner is certainly entitled for compensation under this MACT No.1645/2016 Page 12 heading.
27. Keeping in view the ratio of judgment in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar (supra) as discussed above, in the present case it is evident on record that as a result of the injuries sustained by petitioner in an accident, he suffered 67% permanent disability in relation to both lower limbs. In this regard disability certificate dated 04.02.2020 has come on record. The disablement and loss of earning capacity are two different aspects and may not corresponding to each other and the loss of income has to be seen considering the profession in which the petitioner was engaged at the time of accident. As per case of petitioner, he was working as a salesman inn a shop being run by Delhi Consumer Cooperative Wholesale Store Limited and his working was consisting of standing all of the day. It came in the evidence of petitioner that due to accidental injury his working capacity stated to have affected adversely.
28. In Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court in para 11 and 12 has observed that Tribunal should not be a silent spectator when medical evidence is tendered regarding injuries. Tribunal is required to hold inquiry into the claim for determining just compensation by assessing the medical permanent disability as well as functional disability keeping in view nature of work, profession etc. of the injured. The percentage of permanent disability of whole body cannot be presumed to be percentage loss of earning. Therefore Tribunal is bound to assess corresponding functional disability to compute the future loss of income.
29. This Tribunal has already discussed the evidence of PW3 beside the evidence of PW1 to reflect that at the time of accident petitioner was working as Salesman in Delhi Consumer Cooperative Wholesale Store, Karampura, Moti Nagar and was drawing gross salary of Rs.27,459/-.
MACT No.1645/2016 Page 13 Even if the petitioner was in a Government job and there may not be any substantive loss of future avenues while being in Government job to petitioner on account of suffering accidental injuries, still this Tribunal is of the considered view that since petitioner has suffered 67% of permanent disability in relation to both limbs. Taking into consideration the fact that petitioner was working as a sales executive, his functional ability must have adversely affected. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances, this Tribunal finds functional disability of the injured has affected 50% of the medical disability and petitioner is entitled for future loss of income on account of permanent disability and medical injuries despite being in a Government job which is calculated to be 33.5%.
30. Further, law is well settled that there should be no departure from the multiplier method in injury cases also [refer: Sandeep Khanuja vs. Atul Dande & Anr., (2017) 3 SCC 351]. As per the DAR Ex.PW1/1 (colly.) age of the petitioner at the time of accident was 45 years. There is no dispute with regard to age of the petitioner/injured. As such age of petitioner as on date of accident i.e. 23.11.2015 was 45 years. As such multiplier to be applied in the present case would be 14 as applicable to age group between 41-45 years, would be applicable as per settled principle laid down in case of Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121. Moreover, the law has been well settled by the decisions of Supreme Court in the cases of Sandeep Khanuja (supra) and Erudhaya Priya vs. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601, that while applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are also to be taken into consideration. Thus, considering the petitioner being in the age bracket of 40 to 50 years at the time of accident having permanent job being a Government employee, an addition of MACT No.1645/2016 Page 14 income to the extent of 30% towards future prospects has to be counted.
31. As discussed above, the income of petitioner has been assessed as Rs.27,459/- + 30% (Rs.8,237.70), total Rs.35,696.70 (Rs.27,459/- + Rs.8,237.70). Thus applying the functional disability to be 33.5% of Rs.35,696.70/-, amount comes out to be Rs.11,958.39. As such the loss of future income due to disability comes out to be Rs.11,958.39 X 12 X 14 = Rs.20,09,010/-.
Special Diet & Conveyance Charges:
32. Since it has come on record that petitioner suffered grievous injuries on both his legs and as per medical documents as well as leave record and salary statement of the petitioner, this Tribunal awarded compensation under the head of loss of earning during treatment for a period of four months. It has also come in the evidence of petitioner that he remained admitted in different hospitals on different occasions. Thus, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that petitioner must have incurred expenses towards special diet for his well being during the period of treatment and also incurred expenses towards going to different hospitals. Thus this Tribunal awards compensation of Rs.20,000/- under the head of special diet and Rs.20,000/- under the head of conveyance charges to the petitioner.
Attendant Charges:
33. Since this Tribunal has already assessed compensation to the petitioner for a period of four months under the head of loss of earning during treatment. Though no documentary evidence in this regard has been led by the petitioner, but fact remains that he suffered grievous injuries on both his legs and as per disability certificate his medical disability has been assessed to be 67%. Keeping in view the medical documents placed on MACT No.1645/2016 Page 15 record, this Tribunal is of the view that petitioner must have engaged the services of some attendant and he is required to be awarded compensation under this head for a period of four months. Therefore petitioner in the opinion of this Tribunal is also entitled for minimum wages of unskilled worker i.e. Rs.9,178/- X 4 which comes out to be Rs.36,712/-. NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES :
Pain & Sufferings:
34. 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 v. Jai Kishan, 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."
35. In this case, as per MLC of petitioner which is annexed with DAR Ex.PW1/1 (colly.), he was found to have suffered grievous injuries on his both legs. The treatment record and bills/invoices of pharmacy further show that petitioner had been taking continuous treatment. Thus, it is clear that petitioner must have suffered immense pain and suffering during his treatment and therefore, I am of the opinion that an amount of Rs.25,000/- would be just and fair compensation for pain, sufferings and mental trauma suffered by the petitioner as consequences of injuries sustained in the accident. Accordingly, Rs.25,000/- is granted to the petitioner under this MACT No.1645/2016 Page 16 head.
Loss of Amenities:
36. It is evident on record that even after completion of treatment, petitioner sustained 67% medical permanent physical disability in relation to both lower limbs which has been assessed as 33.5% functional disability in relation to whole body of the petitioner by this Tribunal. It cannot be ignored that with the aforementioned disability, petitioner is bound to face difficulties throughout his life and will not be able to enjoy the amenities of life to the fullest. In view of this, the petitioner is granted a compensation of Rs.25,000/- under this head.
37. Thus, the compensation awarded to the petitioner is summarized as under:-
Sl. No. Head of compensation Amount
1. Medical Expenses Rs.8,28,180/-
Loss of earning during Rs.1,09,836/-
2.
treatment
Loss of future earnings Rs.20,09,010/-
3.
due to disability
4. Special diet Rs.20,000/-
5. Conveyance charges Rs.20,000/-
6. Attendant charges Rs.36,712/-
7. Pain & Suffering Rs.25,000/-
8. Loss of Amenities Rs.25,000/-
Total Rs.30,73,738/-
38. Thus, the total compensation amount to which the petitioner is entitled comes to Rs.30,73,738/-.
INTEREST ON AWARD
39. Petitioner shall also be entitled to interest @ 8% per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
MACT No.1645/2016 Page 17 LIABILITY
40. Now, the question arises as to which of the respondent is liable to pay the compensation amount. It is an admitted fact that the offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent no.3/insurance company. In view of my findings on above issues, it is held that respondent no.3/insurance company shall be liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Relief
41. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.30,73,738/- to the petitioner along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization to be paid by the respondent no.3/insurance company. Amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the compensation amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case. The respondent no.3 is directed to deposit the award amount in A/c no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code UCBA0002078), UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT, Shahdara, through RTGS/ NEFT, within 30 days from today. The respondent no.3 is also directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioner.
Disbursement of Award Amount
42. Out of awarded amount, a sum of Rs.3,73,738/- is directed to be released into the saving account of the petitioner and remaining amount of Rs.27,00,000/- along with the interest on the entire award amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in the form FDR (fixed deposit receipt) to be prepared in the name of petitioner for seven years. The amount of FDR on maturity shall directly be released in petitioner's MACT Saving Bank Account.
MACT No.1645/2016 Page 18 Direction to the petitioner
43. The petitioner shall open a saving bank account near the place of his residence. Further, the bank of petitioner is directed to comply with the following conditions:
(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 i.e., the savings bank account of the claimant 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 bank to the claimant.
(c)The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(d)The maturity amounts of the FDR be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant 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. 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 debit card(s) freeze the account of the claimant so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant from any other branch of the bank.
(g)The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant 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 shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
44. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court ( Shailender Malik ) on 16.01.2024 PO MACT-02/SHD/KKD MACT No.1645/2016 Page 19