Delhi District Court
Sanjay Singh (Dar) vs Rahul (210/18 Badarpur) on 28 August, 2024
:1:
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARU GUPTA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-01 (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No.:963/18
Sanjay Singh v. Rahul
CNR No.: DLSE01-008524-2018
1. Sh. Sanjay Singh
S/o Sh. Hoshiyar Singh
R/o A-129, Hari Nagar Extn-2
Jaitpur Road, Badarpur
New Delhi.
.....Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Rahul
S/o Sh. Sardar Khan
R/o H.No. 818,
Prem Nagar, Sec.-17&16
Juggi, Faridabad,
Haryana.
............Driver/Respondent no.1
2. Sh. Suraj Yadav S/o Sh. Daya Chand Yadav R/o D-166, Teerkha Colony Sec.-3, Ballabhgargh, Faridabda, Haryana.
............Owner/Respondent no.2
3. ICICI Lombard Insurance company 3/5, Aggarwal City Mall MACT NO:963/18 Sanjay Singh v. Rahul P.No. 1 Of 25 BK :2: Pitampura, New Delhi.
............Insurance company/Respondent no.3 Date of accident : 09.06.2018 Result of accident : Injury(Permanent disability) Date of filing of DAR : 15.10.2018 Date of Decision : 28.08.2024 AWARD
1. The present accident claim is based on a detailed accident report (DAR) filed by the police in terms of provisions of MV Act.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 09.06.2018, on receiving DD No.57A regarding biker found stuck beneath a bus, ASI Bhagwan Sahay alongwith Ct. Anoop Kumar reached Badarpur Flyover in front of NTPC where bus bearing no. HR38X3746(hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle) and a bike bearing no. DL12SH-8881 were found in accidental condition. Rider of the bike was found to have been taken to hospital. ASI Bhagwan Sahay reached Apollo hospital and collected MLC of injured. During investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded and offending vehicle and motorcycle was got mechanically inspected. An FIR no.210/18 dated 10.06.2018 u/s 279,337 IPC was registered. During investigation, statement of injured Sanjay Singh u/s 161 CPC was recorded. He averred that on 09.06.2018 at about 9 PM, he was going for his duty on his motorcycle bearing no. DL-12SH-8881. When he reached at Badarpur flyover in front of NTPC, suddenly offending vehicle came from behind from Sarita Vihar side. The same was driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit the bag MACT NO:963/18 Sanjay Singh v. Rahul P.No. 2 Of 25 BK :3: which was attached on the left side of tool box and due to such impact, tool box got stuck in the rear wheel and the bus driver dragged him to a distance. He was crying and one man pointed out for stopping the bus and helped him. Bus driver came to him and fled away thereafter.
3. After investigation, charge sheet was filed u/s 279, 338,471 IPC & 5/181,3/181 MV Act of IPC before concerned criminal court against the driver of the offending vehicle(Respondent no.1) and Respondent no.2(owner) while DAR was filed before this Tribunal.
4. Respondent no.2/owner has filed reply/written statement submitting that offending vehicle is falsely implicated. While as per reply filed by Respondent no.1/driver, he has falsely been implicated in the present case and that he was having a valid DL on the date of accident. It is pleaded that injured was driving his motorcycle on Badarpur flyover which was a No-Entry zone for motorcycles, rickshaws, tractors etc. and the accident occurred solely due to negligence of the victim.
Respondent no.3/insurance company filed reply/written statement submitting that injured was driving the motorcycle in zig-zag manner and should thus, be burdened with contributory negligence of 80%. However, it is admitted that offending vehicle was insured on the date of accident.
5. Vide order dated 10.01.2019, following issues were framed.
1. Whether the injured Sanjay Singh suffered injuries in a road traffic accident on 09.06.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. HR-38X3746(Bus) being driven by R1, owned MACT NO:963/18 Sanjay Singh v. Rahul P.No. 3 Of 25 BK :4: by R2 and insured with R3? OPP.
2. Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
6. Subsequently, petitioner evidence was led wherein petitioner Sanjay Singh examined himself as PW-1 and led his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW1/A. As per the affidavit, on 09.06.2018 at about 9.40 PM, PW-1 was going to Chhatarpur at his work place from his residence on motorcycle bearing no. DL-12SH-8881. When he reached at Badarpur Flyover in front of NTPC Badarpur, suddenly bus(offending vehicle) bearing no. HR-38X-3746, being driven by its driver namely Rahul in a very rash and negligent manner, came from behind and hit the motorcycle due to which the bag which he was carrying on his back got stuck in the bus. Due to this he fell down on the road and was dragged to a distance. He sustained grievous injuries in his left hip, left hand, right collar bone and injuries all over his body. He was taken to Apollo hospital and to Safdarjung hospital for treatment. Therafter, he remained admitted at Holy Family Hospital from 25.06.2018 to 10.07.2018. He was again admitted at Holy Family hospital on 11.09.2018 for skin grafting. He deposed that he spent Rs.3 lacs on his treatment, special diet and conveyance etc. His date of birth is 13.06.1990 and he was 28 years of age at the time of accident and was working as Security Guard with SVS Facilitators and was getting Rs.18,000/- approx. p.m. Due to such accident, he was disabled from pursuing his daily routine without assistance, for about six months.
He relied upon Aadhar card as Ex.PW-1/1, PAN Card as MACT NO:963/18 Sanjay Singh v. Rahul P.No. 4 Of 25 BK :5: Ex.PW-1/2, DL as Ex.PW-1/3, Salary slip as Ex.PW-1/4, MLC as Ex.PW-1/5, discharge summary/OPD card as Ex.PW-1/6, Original medical bills as Ex.PW-1/7, DAR as Ex.PW-1/8, copies of Medical documents of Safdarjung hospital as Mark-A, copy of school leaving certificate as Mark-B. He was duly cross-examined by learned counsel for insurance company, Respondent no.1 and 2.
Respondent no.2 i.e. Owner of offending vehicle, Suraj Yadav led his evidence by examining himself as R-2W-1. He tender his affidavit in evidence as Ex.R-2W-1/1. He deposed that the accident occurred without any fault of the driver of the bus. He stated in the affidavit that the injured was driving his motorcycle on Badarpur Flyover opposite NTPC, in violation to traffic restrictions for certain category of the vehicles. He further stated that the driver of the offending bus was not negligent or rash in driving such bus. He stated that the offending bus did not hit the victim and that the tool box of the offending bus is 1-1/2 feet above the ground with no sharp edges/rods/hooks. It is deposed that the bus was duly insured, was having valid permit and fitness on the date of accident while the driver of the bus held a valid driving licence.
He relied upon photographs of bus as Ex.RW-2/A, copy of DL verification report as Ex.RW-2/B, copy of DL obtained for purpose of employment of Respondent no.1 as Ex.RW-2/C, verification report of insurance certificate as Ex.RW-2/D, photographs of hoarding of Traffic department as Ex.RW-2/E, verification report of permit of offending vehicle as Ex.RW-2/F, and particulars of RC as Ex.RW-2/G. He was duly cross-
MACT NO:963/18 Sanjay Singh v. Rahul P.No. 5 Of 25 BK :6: examined by Ld. counsel for petitioner and insurance company.
Respondent no.3/insurance company led his evidence by examining Sh. Rishabh Kondilya as R-3W-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.R-3W-1/A. R-3W-1 stated that during verification of the documents filed with the DAR, it was found that Respondent no.1 had a fake driving licence on the date of accident. He relied upon notice issued under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC as Ex.R-3W-1/1(colly). He was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsel for petitioner and insurance company.
7. Final arguments in details were addressed on behalf of the claimant/injured, insurance company and Respondent no.1&2/driver and owner. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, evidence adduced and arguments addressed, issue wise findings are as under:
Issue No. 1Whether the injured Sanjay Singh suffered injuries in a road traffic accident on 09.06.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. HR-38X3746(Bus) being driven by R1, owned by R2 and insured with R3? OPP.
8. Before proceeding to decide the above issue, it is apposite to note that as a settled principle of law, proceedings under The Motor Vehicle Act are not considered akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not applicable. Reliance is placed upon decision in Bimla Devi & ors. vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors. (2009) 13 SC 535, in Parmeshwari vs. Amir Chand & Ors., 2011 (1) SCR 1096 and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ 287, wherein it has been held that the negligence has to be MACT NO:963/18 Sanjay Singh v. Rahul P.No. 6 Of 25 BK :7: decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view has to be taken.
9. In the instant case, petitioner has testified to have been driving his motorcycle at the time when accident occurred. During his cross-examination, none of the respondents have denied occurrence of the accident but only put suggestions to controvert the manner of accident. As per the initial statement of the victim recorded by the police also, victim was hit by the offending vehicle from behind. There is no substantial denial or any evidence to the contrary, to show that the offending vehicle hit the motorcycle of the victim from behind, which is clearly shows rash and negligence in driving by the offending vehicle. The chargesheet filed by the investigating officer, site plan and other documents validate the occurrence of the accident. The fact that after investigation, police has filed a chargesheet against Respondent no.1 is strongly suggestive of rash and negligent driving by Respondent no.1.
Reliance is placed upon decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in National Insurance Co. vs. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, it was laid down that completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet are sufficient proof of negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
10. Further, in the present case, the driver of the offending vehicle has not led any evidence in his defence, to rebut the claim of the petitioner. It may further be noted that in Cholamandlam insurance company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh 2009 (3) AD Delhi 310, it was held that if driver of offending vehicle does not enter the witness box, an adverse inference can be drawn against him.
MACT NO:963/18 Sanjay Singh v. Rahul P.No. 7 Of 25 BK :8: Thus, it stands proved that the petitioner suffered injuries in road traffic accident due to rash and negligence of Respondent no.1.
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
11. It is one of the main defences raised by all the Respondents that at the time of accident, victim was plying/driving his motorcycle on a road which displayed hoardings banning the entry of light vehicles including motorcycle, from being driven on such road. Though the petitioner/PW-1 denied that he violated any traffic norm or ignored the hoardings, Respondent no.2 led evidence by placing photographs Ex.R-2W-1/E of the place of incidence. Such photographs have not been denied by the petitioner and further reveal that conspicuous hoardings of "No Entry" of motorcycle, auto-rickshaw, bullockart, horse-cart, trolley and tractor on such road. Existence of a hoarding banning entry of motorcycle on such road makes it evident that the petitioner was riding his motorcycle on such road, in violation to the regulation. Thus, this court assesses contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner to be 50%.
12. In totality of circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner have been able to prove on the scales of preponement of probabilities that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver/respondent no.1 and at the same time, contributed to such negligence by 50%, by driving on a road where the entry of his vehicle was barred.
Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
MACT NO:963/18 Sanjay Singh v. Rahul P.No. 8 Of 25 BK :9: Issue no. 2 Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP.
13. As regards liability to compensate the petitioner, Respondent no.3 has pleaded that Respondent no.1/driver did not hold a valid driving licence at the time of accident and thereby terms and conditions of the insurance policy were violated. It is further pleaded that Respondent no.2, being fully aware and having due knowledge that Respondent no.1 did not have a valid driving licence handed over his vehicle to such Respondent no.1 and thereby violated the conditions of the insurance policy. It is pleaded that since the conditions of the insurance policy were not adhered to by Respondent no.1 and 2, Respondent no.3 is not contractually liable to compensate the petitioner.
Respondent no.3 has examined R-3W-1 to prove that the driving licence of Respondent no.1 was found to be fake and despite service of notice Ex.R-3W-1/1, none of the respondents could produce a valid driving licence. It is further evident from the final report/chargesheet filed in the case that the driver of the offending vehicle has been booked U/s 3/181 of MV Act (necessity for driving licence) while Respondent no.2/owner has been booked u/s 5/181 of MV Act (responsibility of owner of motor vehicles for contravention of section 3 & 4 ). Respondent no.1 has also led no evidence to show possession of a valid driving licence on the date of occurrence of the accident. In fact, R-3W-1 has not even been cross-examined by Respondent no.1 MACT NO:963/18 Sanjay Singh v. Rahul P.No. 9 Of 25 BK : 10 : to rebut the averment of non-possession of valid driving licence.
However, as regards owner of the offending vehicle/Respondent no.2, it is a settled law that such owner of the offending vehicle shall be vicariously liable only if it is proved that violation committed by Respondent no.1/driver was within his knowledge or with his consent. In the instant case, Respondent no.2/owner of the offending vehicle has led detailed evidence to prove that he had employed Respondent no.1 after conducting an interview as well as driving test and only after verifying his driving licence. Respondent no.2 has relied upon copy of DL verification as Ex.R-2W-1/F. This document does not reveal the authority (more specifically RTA,Faridabad Transport Authority) which verified the same. A private verification without due diligence cannot be a ground to exonerate the owner from its vicarious liability to compensate the injured/petitioner. The chargesheet filed by the investigation officer is supported by a verification report obtained from licencing authority-cum-Secy., RTA, Rewari as per which licence number claimed by Respondent no.1 is not found in their record. It is, therefore that Respondent no.1 and 2 have been chargesheeted for offence u/s 3/181 and section 5/181 of MV Act. As such, Respondent no.2, who has claimed to have verified a fake driving licence presented by Respondent no.1 and employed him, is held to be vicariously liable to compensate the petitioner.
The following observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amrit Paul Singh And Another Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited And Others (2018) 7 SCC 558 is relevant to MACT NO:963/18 Sanjay Singh v. Rahul P.No. 10 Of 25 BK : 11 : the present facts and quoted as under:
''...15. We may fruitfully note that the three-Judge Bench adverted to situations where the driver does not have a licence and the same has been allowed to be driven by the owner of the vehicle by such person, the insurer would be entitled to succeed in defence and avoid liability, but the position would be different where the disputed question of fact arises as to whether the driver had a valid licence and where the owner of the vehicle committed a breach of the terms of the contract of insurance as also the provisions of the Act by consciously allowing any person to drive a vehicle who did not have a valid driving licence."
In such circumstances, the liability of compensation falls primarily upon the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, in view of the settled law, the compensation will be payable in the first instance by the insurance company/R-3 but with liberty to recover the same jointly and severally from the driver and owner of the vehicle in question i.e. Respondent no. 1 and 2.
14. As regards the quantum of compensation, this court is governed by the law laid down by Hon'le Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 Supreme Court cases 343, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. (2003) 6SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.(2017) 16 SCC 680. The gist of the law is that 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 MACT NO:963/18 Sanjay Singh v. Rahul P.No. 11 Of 25 BK : 12 : 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.
15. Further it can be noted that the heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
15.1. In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be MACT NO:963/18 Sanjay Singh v. Rahul P.No. 12 Of 25 BK : 13 : awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). 15.2. 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.
15.3. Assessment of pecuniary damages under Item (i) and under Item (ii) (a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence.
15.4. Award under the head of future medical expenses--Item
(iii)--depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof.
15.5. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages--Items (iv), (v) and (vi)--involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. 15.6. Observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr. is quoted hereunder:
"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 the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of MACT NO:963/18 Sanjay Singh v. Rahul P.No. 13 Of 25 BK : 14 : 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, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of `loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation.
MACT NO:963/18 Sanjay Singh v. Rahul P.No. 14 Of 25 BK
: 15 :
Pecuniary /Special Damages
(i) Loss of earnings.
Actual loss of earning:
16. As regards loss of income, petitioner has claimed to be working as Security Guard (SVS Facilitators) and earning Rs.18,000/- per month. Petitioner has filed a salary slip Ex.PW- 1/4(colly), to prove his employment and income. During his cross-examination, Respondent no.3 disputed the employment and salary as claimed by the petitioner. It is observed that the alleged salary slips filed by the petitioner as Ex.PW-1/4 pertain to February, 2018 and May, 2018. Apart from filing only two salary slips of random months, none of these salary slips bear any authentication or certification from the issuing authority. Petitioner has also not examined his employer or any other staff from the office of employer to prove his employment or such salary slips. The reliability of these salary slips is further doubtful as one shows his salary to be Rs.11855/- in month of February, 2018 while the other shows salary of Rs.18598/- barely after three months. These salary slips or employment of the petitioner with alleged company is thus unreliable.
Petitioner has also relied upon his school leaving certificate claiming to have studied till class IX. As such, assuming the petitioner to be educated till 9th standard, his notional income has to be assessed as per minimum wages of an unskilled labour prevalent in State of Delhi. Minimum wages of Delhi in unskilled category in the month of June, 2018 was Rs.13,986/- p.m. MACT NO:963/18 Sanjay Singh v. Rahul P.No. 15 Of 25 BK : 16 : As per discharge summary of Apollo hospital Ex.PW- 1/6(colly), petitioner was admitted on 10.06.2018 and discharged on the same day. He was diagnosed Iliac Bone Fracture apart from other injuries. As per Holy Family hospital, petitioner was admitted on 25.06.2018 and was discharged on 10.07.2018, again admitted on 11.09.2018 and discharged on 14.09.2018. Period of his hospitalization is about 20 days. Considering that the petitioner suffered fracture, the nature of injury suffered by the petitioner is assessed to be grievous in nature. In these circumstances, it is expected that the petitioner may have continued to be on bed rest for at least three months(inclusive of period of hospitalization) and incapacitated from working during that period. Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to compensation towards loss of income equal to Rs.13,896/-X3=Rs.41,688/-. Loss of future income/earnings:
17. In the present case, Pt. Madan Mohan Malviya hospital has issued a disability certificate to the petitioner, noticing permanent disability of 33% in relation to his left upper limb and left lower limb.
Considering the age, educational qualification of the petitioner and the fact that as an unskilled labour, petitioner would have majorly engaged in physical work/labour requiring predominant use of limbs(including the limbs which have been permanently disabled to the extent of 33%), the functional disability of the petitioner is taken to be 33%. As per record, date of birth of petitioner is 13.06.1990. Thus, on the date of accident(09.06.2018), he would have been around 28 years of age. As such, for purpose of calculating loss of future income, a MACT NO:963/18 Sanjay Singh v. Rahul P.No. 16 Of 25 BK : 17 : multiplier of 17, as per Sarla Verma judgment, would be applicable in the case and 40% would be added as future prospect as Pranay Sethi judgment. Hence, compensation towards loss of future income is assessed to Rs.13896/-(monthly income)X12(annual computation)X17(multiplier)+40% of total income(as future prospect)=Rs.39,68,697.6. 33% of this amount would be Rs.13,09,671/-. Hence so awarded.
(ii) Future Medical Expenses:
18. Since there is no amputation of any limb of the petitioner caused due to injury in the accident and no evidence has been led qua continuous future treatment, no compensation is being granted under this head.
(iii) Expenses relating to treatment:
19. Petitioner has relied upon the original medical bills as Ex.PW-1/7(colly). Petitioner has filed medical bills of Rs.1,78,698/- towards his treatment. Hence, Rs.1,78,698/- is awarded towards expenditure on treatment.
Apart from expenditure on treatment, a sum of Rs.20,000/- under each head i.e. conveyance, special diet and cost of nursing/ attendant is granted to the petitioner.
20. In this background, considering the material and evidence on record and the law on compensation in such like cases, as already discussed above, compensation in the present case is calculated as under:
Sl. Pecuniary loss : - Quantum
no.
1. (I) Expenditure on treatment : Rs.1,78,698/-
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance : Rs.20,000/-
MACT NO:963/18 Sanjay Singh v. Rahul P.No. 17 Of 25 BK
: 18 :
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : Rs.20,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing / attendant : Rs.20,000/-
(v) Loss of income : Rs.13896/- X 3 Rs.41,688/-
months
(vi) Cost of artificial limbs (if applicable) : NA
(vii) Any other loss / expenditure : Not applicable
2. Non-Pecuniary Loss :
(I) Compensation of mental and physical Rs.50,000/-
shock :
(ii) Pain and suffering : Rs.50,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life : Rs.50,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration : Nil
(v) Loss of marriage prospects : Nil. Since no
averment has
been made
regarding his
marital status
as on the date
of accident.
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity (I) Percentage of disability assessed and The petitioner nature of disability as permanent or has suffered temporary 33% permanent disability in his left upper limb and left lower limb.
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of expectation Already of life span on account of disability : granted
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity Already in relation to disability: granted
(iv) Loss of future Income: The functional Rs.13,09,671/- disability is taken 33%.
MACT NO:963/18 Sanjay Singh v. Rahul P.No. 18 Of 25 BK
: 19 :
Total Compensation Rs.17,40,057/-
Deduction towards contributory negligence Rs.8,70,028.5 @50% Total Compensation after deduction Rs.8,70,028.5 Rs.8,70,029/-
(round off)
Interest Simple interest
@7.5% p.a.
from the date
of filing of
DAR till actual
realization of
Award amount/
compensation.
21. The total compensation payable to the claimant would be Rs.8,70,029/- with simple interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR till its actual realization.
LIABILITY
22. As already decided, principal award amount/ compensation will be payable by Respondent no.3/insurance company with simple interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of petition till actual realization with recovery rights to the insurance company against the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.
Directions Regarding Deposit of Award Amount in Bank:
23. In compliance of directions issued vide order dated 16.11.2021 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition Civil No.534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India the award amount shall be deposited MACT NO:963/18 Sanjay Singh v. Rahul P.No. 19 Of 25 BK : 20 : with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT SAVING ACCOUNT No. 00000042706875094, IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir in the prescribed format i.e. MCOP Number on the file of (Claims Tribunal Name) Date of award, Compensation Amount, Income Tax Deduction at Source, Bank Transaction Reference No./Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. In turn, the State Bank of India, Saket Courts Branch shall receive the deposited sum and capture the above information and furnish a statement of account on a daily basis to the Nazir of this Tribunal to reconcile the deposits of compensation and the respective MCOPs towards which such deposits are made. On such deposits being made, the insurance company shall submit a letter to the Nazir of this Tribunal enclosing a copy of the said bank advice, in prescribed format as above, as per which the deposit made to the bank account of this Tribunal, to enable this Tribunal to keep tab on the deposits made and the MCOPs for which they were made. The Payment advice for remittance of compensation is as under:
PAYMENT ADVICE FOR REMITTANCE OF
COMPENSATION :
............ Bank ...................
To:
............... Court ........................ We confirm remittance of compensation as follows on instructions of ................................... (insurance company):-
MCOP Number On the file of (Claims Tribunal Name), Place Date of award Amount Deposited, Income Tax Deduction at Source, if any Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number.
MACT NO:963/18 Sanjay Singh v. Rahul P.No. 20 Of 25 BK : 21 : Insurance company of offending vehicle, on deposit, shall also send a copy of the payment advice in above format to this Tribunal and serve a copy of the same on the claimants or their counsel as the case may be.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP).
24. This court is in receipt of the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors whereby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has formulated MACAD(Motor Accident Claims Annunity Deposit Scheme) which has been made effective from 01.01.2019. The said orders dated 07.12.2018 also mentions that 21 banks including State Bank of India is one of such banks which are to adhere to MACAD. The State Bank of India, Saket Courts, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Apportionment:-
25. Another issue which is to be decided is out of such Award amount, how much is to be released at present and how much is to kept in the form of FDR for future financial used of the petitioner.
26. At this stage, it is relevant to the refer to the judgment of A. V. Padma & Ors. Vs., R. Venugopal & Ors. (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 378:
"......In the case of Susamma Thomas (supra), this Court issued certain guidelines in order to "safeguard MACT NO:963/18 Sanjay Singh v. Rahul P.No. 21 Of 25 BK : 22 : the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries due to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation".
Even as per the guidelines issued by this Court Court, long term fixed deposit of amount of compensation is mandatory only in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows. In the case of illiterate claimants, the Tribunal is allowed to consider the request for lumpsum payment for effecting purchase of any movable property such as agricultural implements, rickshaws etc. to earn a living. However, in such cases, the Tribunal shall make sure that the amount is actually spent for the purpose and the demand is not a ruse to withdraw money. In the case of semi-illiterate claimants, the Tribunal should ordinarily invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. But if the Tribunal is satisfied for reasons to be stated in writing that the whole or part of the amount is required for expanding an existing business or for purchasing some property for earning a livelihood, the Tribunal can release the whole or part of the amount of compensation to the claimant provided the Tribunal will ensure that the amount is invested for the purpose for which it is demanded and paid. In the case of literate persons, it is not mandatory to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit.
The expression used in guideline No. (iv) issued by this Court is that in the case of literate persons also the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i), whereas in the guideline Nos.
(i), (ii), (iii) and (v), the expression used is that the Tribunal should. Moreover, in the case of literate persons, the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i) only if, having regard to the age, fiscal background and strata of the society to which the claimant belongs and such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks that in the larger interest of the claimant and with a view to MACT NO:963/18 Sanjay Singh v. Rahul P.No. 22 Of 25 BK : 23 : ensure the safety of the compensation awarded, it is necessary to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit.
Thus, sufficient discretion has been given to the Tribunal not to insist on investment of the compensation amount in long term fixed deposit and to release even the whole amount in the case of literate persons. However, the Tribunals are often taking a very rigid stand and are mechanically ordering in almost all cases that the amount of compensation shall be invested in long term fixed deposit. They are taking such a rigid and mechanical approach without understanding and appreciating the distinction drawn by this Court in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows and in the case of semiliterate and literate persons. It needs to be clarified that the above guidelines were issued by this Court only to safeguard the interests of the claimants, particularly the minors, illiterates and others whose amounts are sought to be withdrawn on some fictitious grounds. The guidelines were not to be understood to mean that the Tribunals were to take a rigid stand while considering an application seeking release of the money.
The guidelines cast a responsibility on the Tribunals to pass appropriate orders after examining each case on its own merits. However, it is seen that even in cases when there is no possibility or chance of the feed being frittered away by the beneficiary owing to ignorance, illiteracy or susceptibility to exploitation, investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit is directed by the Tribunals as a matter of course and in a routine manner, ignoring the object and the spirit of the guidelines issued by this Court and the genuine requirements of the claimants. Even in the case of literate persons, the Tribunals are automatically ordering investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit without recording that MACT NO:963/18 Sanjay Singh v. Rahul P.No. 23 Of 25 BK : 24 : having regard to the age or fiscal background or the strata of the society to which the claimant belongs or such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks it necessary to direct such investment in the larger interests of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded to him.
The Tribunals very often dispose of the claimant's application for withdrawal of the amount of compensation in a mechanical manner and without proper application of mind. This has resulted in serious injustice and hardship to the claimants. The Tribunals appear to think that in view of the guidelines issued by this Court, in every case the amount of compensation should be invested in long term fixed deposit and under no circumstances the Tribunal can release the entire amount of compensation to the claimant even if it is required by him. Hence a change of attitude and approach on the part of the Tribunals is necessary in the interest of justice..."
27. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and the abovesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Supreme Court, out of total Award amount, Rs.6,00,000/- be kept in the form of monthly FDRs of Rs.15,000/-. Remaining amount of Rs.2,70,029/- be released to the petitioner/injured alongwith simple interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of petition till its actual realization, in his bank account near his place of residence as per rule/ directions.
28. The Nodal Officer of the bank shall ensure the disbursement of the award amount within three weeks of the receipt of the e-mail as mentioned in the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
MACT NO:963/18 Sanjay Singh v. Rahul P.No. 24 Of 25 BK : 25 : FORM -VI-B SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1 Date of accident 09.06.2018 2 Name of injured Sanjay Singh 3 Age of the injured 28 years 4 Occupation of the Unskilled labour injured 5 Income of the injured Rs.13,896/- p.m.(Minimum wages of unskilled labour of Delhi) 6 Nature injury Grievous/Disability 7 Medical treatment Safdarjung hospital, Apollo taken by the injured: hospital and Holy Family hospital 8 Period of on 10.06.2018, Hospitalization from 25.06.2018 to 10.07.2018, from 11.09.2018 to 14.09.2018 9 Whether any 33% in relation to left upper limb permanent disability? and left lower limb.
29. List for compliance on 30.09.2024.
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
Announced in open Court GUPTA Date:
2024.08.28
On 28th August, 2024 16:53:25
+0530
(Charu Gupta)
PO-MACT-01(South-East)
Saket Court/ New Delhi
MACT NO:963/18 Sanjay Singh v. Rahul P.No. 25 Of 25 BK