Delhi District Court
Ram Mohan Trivedi Fir No.67/21, Hauz ... vs Jitender Bhadana on 30 September, 2024
Ram Mohan Trivedi vs. Jitender Bhadana and ors.
DLST010030282023
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDESH KUMAR
PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT : SOUTH DISTT. : SAKET
COURTS : NEW DELHI
Petition No. : 98/2023
CNR No. DLST01-003028-2023
RAM MOHAN TRIVEDI VS. JITENDER BHADANA AND
ORS.
FIR NO.67/2021 PS Hauz Khas
Mr. Ram Mohan Trivedi
S/o Mr. Ramnath Trivedi
R/o H.no. 772, 44, Molarband Extension,
Badarpur, South Delhi,
Delhi - 110044. ....PETITIONER
Versus
1. Mr. Jitender Bhadana
S/o Mr. Jaini
R/o H.No. 171, Dhumaspur Village,
Anangpur, Amar Nagar, Distt. Faridabad,
Haryana ..driver
2. Mr. Harsh Wardhan
S/o Mr. Satnam Dass
R/o H.No. 1-108, Lajpat Nagar-1,
South Delhi - 110024. ..owner
3. Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd.
New Delhi. ..insurance company
Petition No. : 98/2023 Page No.1/38
FIR NO. 67/2021 PS Hauz Khas
Ram Mohan Trivedi vs. Jitender Bhadana and ors.
Date of Institution : 25.03.2023
Date of reserving of judgment/
order : 24.09.2024
Date of pronouncement : 30.09.2024
JUDGMENT:
1. This is a claim for compensation arising out of the Detailed Accident Report filed u/s 158(6) Motor Vehicle Act, qua petitioner Ram Mohan Trivedi for the injuries suffered by him in a vehicular accident which occurred on 25.02.2021 with respect to which FIR No.67/2021 was registered at Police Station Hauz Khas against R-1 Jitender Bhadana, driver of the offending vehicle, owned by Mr. Harsh Wardhan and insured with respondent no. 3/ Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd.
2. The IO has filed copies of the criminal proceedings including FIR and the charge-sheet in the DAR.
3. Brief facts of the vehicular accident as averred in the DAR are that on 25.02.2021 at about 11.00 PM the petitioner Ram Mohan Trivedi was driving his TSR bearing no. DL-1RZ- 2558 and was returning from Lajpat Nagar after dropping one passenger. When he reached at 'Andrewsganj Flyover' near Red Light, New Delhi, then all of a sudden a car bearing no. UP- 16AM-2123 which was being driven by respondent Jitender Bhadana in a very rash and negligent manner came and hit his Petition No. : 98/2023 Page No.2/38 FIR NO. 67/2021 PS Hauz Khas Ram Mohan Trivedi vs. Jitender Bhadana and ors.
TSR. Due to said impact, he fell down on the road alongwith his TSR and sustained grievous injuries. As a result thereof, the claimant has suffered 46% permanent physical impairment in respect of his both lower limbs.
4. WS filed by the respondent no. 1/ driver stating that the respondent was not driving the alleged vehicle on the day and time of the alleged incident. The accident was not caused due to fault of the respondent no. 1. No accident has taken place from the vehicle of the respondent and a false case has been registered against the respondent no. 1.
5. WS was filed by the respondent no. 2/ owner stating that the respondent no. 2 has no role in commission of the said incident nor there was any negligence on his part in any manner whatsoever. He submitted that the occurrence of the said incident is nothing but due to alleged carelessness of the respondent no. 1, same is the fact also apparent from the statements of the IO and the other witnesses. He further submitted that being a doctor by profession he had always maintained the documentation including Driving licencse, RC, insurance policy and pollution certificate of the offending vehicle in a disciplined manner and he also made sure that the respondent no. 1 who was hired and employed in the capacity of a driver was also carrying a valid driver's license which reflects nothing but the bonafide of the respondent no. 2.
Petition No. : 98/2023 Page No.3/38FIR NO. 67/2021 PS Hauz Khas Ram Mohan Trivedi vs. Jitender Bhadana and ors.
6. No statutory defence was raised by the insurance company and legal offer was filed by counsel for the insurance company which was not accepted by the petitioner.
7. After completion of the pleadings, vide order dated 24.05.2024 following issues were framed :-
1. Whether Mr. Ram Mohan Trivedi sustained injuries in the road accident on 25.02.2021 at around 11.30 PM at Andrewsganj near Flyover, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of car bearing no. UP-16AM-2123 being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3 (Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd.).... (OPP)
2. to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled and from whom?...OPP
3. Relief.
8. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties and have carefully perused the court record.
My findings on the issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO. 11. 1. Whether Mr. Ram Mohan Trivedi sustained injuries in the road accident on 25.02.2021 at around 11.30 PM at Andrewsganj near Flyover, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of car bearing no. UP-16AM-2123 being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3 (Future Petition No. : 98/2023 Page No.4/38 FIR NO. 67/2021 PS Hauz Khas Ram Mohan Trivedi vs. Jitender Bhadana and ors.
General India Insurance Company Ltd.).... (OPP)
9. In a claim petition, onus is on the petitioner to prove that he suffered injuries in the vehicular accident caused by the wrongful act or negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
10. In order to establish his claim, the petitioner Ram Mohan Trivedi has examined himself as PW1. In his affidavit filed in evidence Ex.PW1/A, he deposed on the lines of the DAR submitting that on 25.02.2021 at about 11.00 PM he was driving TSR bearing no. DL-1RZ-2558 and was returning from Lajpat Nagar after dropping one passenger. When he reached on Andrewsganj Flyover near Red Light, New Delhi, then all of a sudden a car bearing no. UP-16AM-2123 which was being driven by respondent Jitender Bhadhna in a very rash and negligent manner came and hit his TSR. Due to said impact, he sustained grievous injuries in his both legs, abdomen and other injuries all over his body. He was immediately taken to JPN Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi where the doctors of the said hospital have declared grievous injuries in his both legs, abdomen and other injuries as per medical record. He remained admitted in the hospital from 26.02.2021 to 05.11.2021 and multiple surgeries were done. Thereafter, he was again admitted in the above-said hospital from 24.10.2022 to 24.11.2022 and from 20.08.2023 to 09.10.2023. He was still under treatment/ observation by the doctors of the abovesaid hospital and he has to undergo more Petition No. : 98/2023 Page No.5/38 FIR NO. 67/2021 PS Hauz Khas Ram Mohan Trivedi vs. Jitender Bhadana and ors.
surgery. He was 39 years at the time of accident. He was working as driver in Delhi and was earning more than Rs. 25000/- per month which was also increasing from time to time. He has relied upon following documents in support of his contentions :-
1. Copy of his Aadhar Card is exhibited as Ex. PW-1/1. (OSR)
2. Copy of his MLC is exhibited as Ex. PW-1/2.
3. Copy of First Discharge summary is exhibited as Ex.
PW-1/3. ( Colly.)
4. Copy of second Discharge summary is exhibited as Ex. PW-1/4. ( Colly.)
5. Copy of third Discharge summary and OPD cards are exhibited as Ex. PW-1/5. ( Colly.).
6. DAR is exhibited as Ex. PW-1/6. ( Colly.)
7. Disability certificate is exhibited as Ex. PW-1/7.
In his cross-examination by Mr. Pradeep Kumar,Ld. Counsel for R-1 Jitender Bhadana, he denied the suggestion that the accident took place due to his own negligence and the driver of the offending vehicle was not negligent. He also denied that he has filed the case against the driver in connivance with the IO of the present case.
In his cross-examination by Mr. Kamal Deep, Ld. Counsel for the insurance company, he admitted that he has not placed on record any medical document to show that he has to undergo surgery. He does not have any proof to show that he was Petition No. : 98/2023 Page No.6/38 FIR NO. 67/2021 PS Hauz Khas Ram Mohan Trivedi vs. Jitender Bhadana and ors.
earning Rs.25,000/- per month or it was increasing from time to time as stated in para 4 of his affidavit. He further admitted that he has not placed any document to show that he is not able to do his daily routine work without the help of others.
11. Dr. Kushal Narula, Senior Resident, AIIMS Trauma Centre, New Delhi was examined as PW2. He produced the summoned record i.e. all the treatment records and discharge summaries of the injured Ram Mohan Trivedi @ Ram Mohan Tiwari. The same are Ex.PW2/A (colly). As per the record, injured Ram Mohan Trivedi has received "Laceration over 6x2 cm over left flank", "laceration over dorsum of foot 6x4 cm and over left ankle 10x2 cm and abrasion over right elbow and left hand and left elbow". The injured has also received internal injuries i.e. "injuries with descending colon transection with jejunal perforation, laceration of spleen". He has received injuries in his both intestines (large and small). Till date, he has remained hospitalized for six times in their hospital. With these injuries, the injured can not perform any professional work. He can not drive an auto rickshaw. The injured can not sit or stand for a long time period. He may need assistant for his daily routine work.
In his cross-examination by Mr. Kamaldeep, Ld. counsel for the insurance company, he stated that he is not a treating doctor in this case nor he has seen the injured in OPD or otherwise. He was not the member to the board of disability assessment. He can not comment upon the disability certificate of Petition No. : 98/2023 Page No.7/38 FIR NO. 67/2021 PS Hauz Khas Ram Mohan Trivedi vs. Jitender Bhadana and ors.
the injured as same has been issued by Pt. Madan Mohan Malaviya Hospital. He denied the suggestion that since he has not treated the injured, therefore, he can not comment whether the injured can perform any profession work. He denied the suggestion that the injured can perform other activities and even drive TSR.
12. Ld. Counsel for the claimant filed an application for assessment of physical disability of the petitioner which was allowed vide order dated 06.09.2023. Disability Assessment Certificate from Pt. Madan Mohan Malaviya Hospital was received as per which, the injured has suffered 46% permanent physical impairment in relation to his both lower limbs.
FINAL ARGUMENTS :-
13. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has argued forcefully that from the evidence of PW1 coupled with the criminal record filed by the IO, the petitioner has proved the fact that it was the respondent no. 1 who had caused the grievous injuries to the injured by his rash and negligent driving.
14. Ld. counsel for the respondent no(s).1 and 2 contended that the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the injured himself.
15. Ld. counsel for the insurance company stated that he Petition No. : 98/2023 Page No.8/38 FIR NO. 67/2021 PS Hauz Khas Ram Mohan Trivedi vs. Jitender Bhadana and ors.
has no statutory defence in this matter. However, he contended that the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the injured.
16. In the present case, the Investigating Officer had filed the DAR containing FIR, Charge sheet, site plan, MLC etc. Charge sheet has been filed against the respondent no.1. PW1 Ram Mohan Trivedi had categorically deposed about the occurrence of the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the Respondent No.1. No other version of accident has come on record except the one as narrated by injured. The statement of the injured that the offending vehicle hit him finds support from the fact that the I.O. seized the offending vehicle and got it mechanically inspected.
17. The IO has filed the chargesheet and the DAR after completion of the investigation. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meera Devi & ors., 2021 LawSuit (Del) 2021 wherein it was held that "......in view of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008, contents of DAR has to be presumed to be correct and read in evidence without formal proof of the same unless proof to the contrary was produced."
Petition No. : 98/2023 Page No.9/38FIR NO. 67/2021 PS Hauz Khas Ram Mohan Trivedi vs. Jitender Bhadana and ors.
18. DAR and copies of criminal proceedings filed alongwith it are admissible in evidence and deemed to be correct under Rule 7 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 2008 unless proved to the contrary. Copies of criminal proceedings filed include FIR, chargesheet, site plan, MLC of the petitioner, mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle besides the documents pertains to the offending vehicle. Copies of criminal proceedings filed alongwith it have not been challenged and controverted by any of the respondents.
19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 has observed that filing of charge sheet against the driver prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle rashly and negligently.
20. 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 on preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt, as are required in a criminal prosecution. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported as (2009) 13 SC 530 in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, wherein it has been observed that strict proof of an accident Petition No. : 98/2023 Page No.10/38 FIR NO. 67/2021 PS Hauz Khas Ram Mohan Trivedi vs. Jitender Bhadana and ors.
caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the petitioners and the petitioners were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.
21. Reference in this regard can also be made to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kaushnumma Begum and Others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, wherein it was held that the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of the driver of motor vehicle involved in the accident is of secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would make the petition maintainable u/s 166 & 140 of the M V Act.
22. In the present case, the accident itself is not disputed. The police authorities acted promptly and criminal law was set into motion. FIR was registered on the basis of DD entries. The respondent no. 1/Driver cum owner was charge-sheeted for rash and negligent driving on a public way thereby causing serious injuries to victim. Admittedly, the respondent no. 1 has not filed any complaint before any authorities for his false implication. R- 1 has not disputed in reply filed to DAR that he was at wheels during the accident. Injured continued to remain unfit for statement for months altogether as can be seen from the MLC Petition No. : 98/2023 Page No.11/38 FIR NO. 67/2021 PS Hauz Khas Ram Mohan Trivedi vs. Jitender Bhadana and ors.
itself as well as the other medical documents. The respondent no.1 was driving his car and therefore was in total control of the said vehicle and was under an obligation to exercise due care under the prevailing circumstances as expected of any reasonable person. Any accident is not contemplated in advance and therefore, cannot be said to have happened in the ordinary course of nature without negligence and the best person to lead credible evidence or to present factor beyond his control was the respondent no. 1 that the accident was not a result of his negligence rather was an interplay of certain other factors. The petitioner in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A has clearly deposed that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving it rashly and negligently. He has narrated the manner in which the accident has taken place. His deposition on this fact has gone unrebutted by respondent no. 1. The respondent no. 2 in his WS also mentioned that the respondent no. 1 was driving the offending vehicle on the date of accident. He stated that the accident has taken place due to negligence of the respondent no. 1.
23. The damages on the offending vehicle were never been explained by respondent no. 1. From the mechanical inspection report produced on record it is found that there are fresh damages due to accidental impact on the offending vehicle. The mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle shows that there are fresh damages on the vehicle on the front bumper/2 fog lights/2 head lights/ damaged, front bonet and front members Petition No. : 98/2023 Page No.12/38 FIR NO. 67/2021 PS Hauz Khas Ram Mohan Trivedi vs. Jitender Bhadana and ors.
pressed/ damaged, left/ft fender dented. Further, the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle also shows that there were green paint marks. Further, the mechanical inspection report of the TSR of the injured also shows that there are damages on the front mud guard dented/pressed/ft suspension damaged, fork pressed/damaged/ handle bar damaged, front show dented/pressed/dash board damaged, front wind screen glass frame dented/pressed/wiper damaged, left front indicator damaged/ right wind screen glass broken, chasis pressed, damaged, pipe frame dented /pressed/ Hood Cloth damaged, rt side passenger body/Rt side rear mudguard pressed/damaged, left side body scratched, rear 2 rim dented. Both these reports corroborate the version of the petitioner and the investigation of the IO.
24. In view of foregoing discussion, it stands proved that the aforesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. UP- 16AM-2123 and that the said vehicle at that time was being driven by R-1, owned by R-2 and insured with R-2. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
Issue no. 2
2. to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled and from whom?...OPP
25. As this Tribunal has already held that it was the respondent Petition No. : 98/2023 Page No.13/38 FIR NO. 67/2021 PS Hauz Khas Ram Mohan Trivedi vs. Jitender Bhadana and ors.
no. 1/driver cum owner of the offending vehicle who was responsible for the grievous injuries suffered by the claimant due to his neglect and default in driving the said vehicle at the relevant time, therefore, the petitioner has become entitled to be compensated for the grievous injuries suffered by her in the said accident. Now, the court has to assess as to how much compensation be awarded to the claimant and by whom? First of all the court has to decide as to whom the liability to pay the compensation is fastened.
26. As the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1, and owned by respondent no.2, so respondent no.1 is primarily liable and respondent no.2 is vicariously liable to compensate the petitioners. It is an admitted position on record that the vehicle was insured with respondent no.3, therefore, respondent no. 3 becomes contractually liable to compensate the petitioners/claimants for the amount.
27. Let the compensation be assessed which the claimant is entitled for under different heads.
28. Sec. 168 MV Act enjoins the Claim Tribunals to hold an inquiry into the claim to determine the compensation payable and pass an award. Relevant portion of Section 168 MV Act is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
"(1) Award of the Claims Tribunal.--On receipt of an application for compensation made under section 166, the Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the Petition No. : 98/2023 Page No.14/38 FIR NO. 67/2021 PS Hauz Khas Ram Mohan Trivedi vs. Jitender Bhadana and ors.
application to the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, as the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the provisions of section 162 may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the case may be: Provided that where such application makes a claim for compensation under section 140 in respect of the death or permanent disablement of any person, such claim and any other claim (whether made in such application or otherwise) for compensation in respect of such death or permanent disablement shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Chapter X. . . .
29. "....Money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered." {as observed in the case of H. West and Son Limited Vs. Shephard 1958 -65 ACJ 504 (HL, England)}. It recognizes that the physical damage caused once cannot be fully undone. Something which remains as an indelible permanent sign of an unfortunate incident cannot be balanced merely by paying some monetary compensation. The process of damage and the ugly scars left on physical body and mental self, navigating through the entire process post accident and the unintended but compulsory turns that it brings in the course of life is indeed painful and traumatic. It is also required to be underlined that the damage is not restricted to the tangible injuries visible on the body of the injured rather catapults the lives of his family Petition No. : 98/2023 Page No.15/38 FIR NO. 67/2021 PS Hauz Khas Ram Mohan Trivedi vs. Jitender Bhadana and ors.
members also.
30. The assessment or grant of compensation is a small attempt to render assistance to the injured to navigate through the hairpin unanticipated sudden and traumatic turn in order to bring some elbow space for him to move towards stability and normalcy to the extent possible. The underlying principle remains thus to make good the damage so far as possible as equivalent in money.
31. Section 168 MV Act puts an obligation over Tribunal to assess 'just' compensation with the object of putting the sufferer in the same position as nearly as possible as he would have been if he had not sustained the wrong. It is worthwhile to reproduce certain observations made by Karnataka High Court in the case of K. Narasimha Murthy v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd ILR 2004 KAR 2471 as referred and relied in the case of Rekha Jain Vs. National Insurance Company Limited Civil Appeal No. 5370- 5372 of 2013 which enumerates the milestones to be kept in mind by the Tribunal in an endevour to assess just compensation, at the same time acknowledging that any amount of money cannot compensate fully an injured man or completely renew a shattered human physical frame with the observations as under:
"16. The Courts and Tribunals, in bodily injury cases, while assessing compensation, should take into account all relevant circumstances, evidence, legal principles governing quantification of compensation. Further, they Petition No. : 98/2023 Page No.16/38 FIR NO. 67/2021 PS Hauz Khas Ram Mohan Trivedi vs. Jitender Bhadana and ors.
have to approach the issue of awarding compensation on the larger perspectives of justice, equity and good conscience and eschew technicalities in the decision- making. There should be realisation on the part of the Tribunals and Courts that the possession of one's own body is the first and most valuable of all human rights, and that all possessions and ownership are extensions of this primary right, while awarding compensation for bodily injuries. Bodily injury is to be treated as a deprivation which entitles a claimant to damages. The amount of damages varies according to gravity of injuries."
32. It is also settled that the monetary assessment is a methodology known to law as social and legal security to a victim even though the nature of injuries and the individual ramifications might vary in different cases, therefore, it is understandable that one remedy cannot heal all. Further, the loss is in the nature of deprivation and it is unlike a personal asset with a price tag which can be simply awarded and therefore, complete accuracy in making such assessment is not humanly possible. The endevour is thus to make an assessment as best and as fair as possible under the given circumstance. The uncertainty of bringing justness to an assessment has been recognized, still holding that substantial damages must be awarded. The observations made by Lord Halsbury in the case of Mediana In re 1900 AC 113 (HL) give valuable insights into the aspect and reproduced as under:
"......Of course the whole region of inquiry into damages is one of extreme difficulty. You very often cannot even lay down any principle upon which you can give damages;Petition No. : 98/2023 Page No.17/38
FIR NO. 67/2021 PS Hauz Khas Ram Mohan Trivedi vs. Jitender Bhadana and ors.
nevertheless it is remitted to the jury or those who stand in place of the jury, to consider what compensation in money shall be given for what is a wrongful act. Take the most familiar and ordinary case: how is anybody to measure pain and suffering in money counted? Nobody can suggest that you can by any arithmetical calculation establish what is the exact amount of money which would represent such a thing as the pain and suffering which a person has undergone by reason of an accident....... But nevertheless the law recognizes that as a topic upon which damages may be given"
33. The uncertainty involved has also been recognized by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rekha Jain (supra) where observations of Lord Blacburn in the case of Livingstone Vs. Rawyards Coal Company were referred as under:
".......where any injury is to be compensated by damages, in settling the sum of money to be given... you should as nearly as possible get at that sum of money which will put the party who has been injured.. in the same position as he would have been if he had not sustained the wrong...."
34. It is further observed by their Lordship in the case of Rekha Jain (supra) as follows:
"41.....Besides, the Court is well advised to remember that the measures of damages in all these cases 'should be such as to enable even a tortfeasor to say that he had amply atoned for his misadventure'. The observation of Lord Devlin that the proper approach to the problem or to adopt a test as to what contemporary society would deem to be a fair sum, such as would allow the wrongdoer to 'hold up his head among his neighbours and say with their approval Petition No. : 98/2023 Page No.18/38 FIR NO. 67/2021 PS Hauz Khas Ram Mohan Trivedi vs. Jitender Bhadana and ors.
that he has done the fair thing' is quite opposite to be kept in mind by the Court in assessing compensation in personal injury cases."
35. It is also settled that the compensation is not granted only for the physical injury but for the entire loss which results from the injury in an endevour to place the victim in a position as close as possible as prior to the accident (support drawn from National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors (2017) 16 SCC 680 also in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343). It is also settled as held in catena of judgments that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and the object of the Tribunal ought to be to assist the injured persons, (support drawn from Helen C Rebello (Mrs) & Ors. v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Anr (1999) 1 SCC 90).
36. It is settled that an injured is required to be compensated for his inability to lead full life, his inability to enjoy those natural 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 (support drawn from C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 as further referred and relied in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) and then in a recent pronouncement of Sidram Vs Divisonal Manager United India Insurance Company & Anr SLP (Civil) No.19277 of 2018).
Petition No. : 98/2023 Page No.19/38FIR NO. 67/2021 PS Hauz Khas Ram Mohan Trivedi vs. Jitender Bhadana and ors.
37. What is required of the Tribunal is to attempt an objective assessment of damages as nearly as possible without fanciful or whimsical speculation even though, some conjecture specially in reference of the nature of disability and it consequence would be inevitable. {support drawn from the case of Raj Kumar (supra) as referred and relied in case of Sidram (supra)}.
38. Observing that a measure of damages cannot be arrived with precise mathematical calculations and that much depends upon peculiar facts and circumstances of any matter, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India elaborated upon the expression "which appears to it to be just" in the case of Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty and Another, (2003) 7 SCC 197.
39. The observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K. Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited (2012) 12 SCC 274 provide valuable insights into the factors to be weighed by the Tribunal for determination of quantum of compensation, the relevant extract of which is reproduced as under:
"10. It is noteworthy to state that an adjudicating authority, while determining the quantum of compensation, has to keep in view the sufferings of the injured person which would include his inability to lead a full life, his incapacity to enjoy the normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries and his ability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. Hence, while Petition No. : 98/2023 Page No.20/38 FIR NO. 67/2021 PS Hauz Khas Ram Mohan Trivedi vs. Jitender Bhadana and ors.
computing compensation the approach of the Tribunal or a court has to be broad. Needless to say, it would involve some guesswork as there cannot be any mathematical exactitude or a precise formula to determine the quantum of compensation. In determination of compensation the fundamental criterion of "just compensation" should be inhered."
40. The compensation has been broadly delineated as pecuniary and non pecuniary in the case of R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control India Pvt Ltd. 1995 AIR 755. It is worthwhile to reproduce certain observations made therein:
"9....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 those which the victim has actually incurred and which are 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 up to 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 and 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, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life."Petition No. : 98/2023 Page No.21/38
FIR NO. 67/2021 PS Hauz Khas Ram Mohan Trivedi vs. Jitender Bhadana and ors.
41. The issue of determination of compensation in a personal injury matter was extensively deliberated by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) Relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced hereunder for further discussion:
6. 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).
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 Petition No. : 98/2023 Page No.22/38 FIR NO. 67/2021 PS Hauz Khas Ram Mohan Trivedi vs. Jitender Bhadana and ors.
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.
42. In the light of the aforementioned judgments, the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled shall be as under:-
PECUNIARY DAMAGES :
MEDICAL EXPENSES :
43. As per the record, the petitioner has not filed any original medical bills despite reminders for the same being given. Therefore, no amount can be awarded towards medical expenses.
Expenditure on Conveyance:
44. The nature of injuries are grievous with 46% permanent physical impairment in relation to both lower limbs. It is understandable that he was remained admitted at AIIMS Hospital from 26.02.2021 to 05.11.2021. Thereafter he was again admitted from 24.10.2022 to 24.11.2022 and from 20.09.2023 to 09.10.2023. Further, his family members or support person also would have required to travel considering the Petition No. : 98/2023 Page No.23/38 FIR NO. 67/2021 PS Hauz Khas Ram Mohan Trivedi vs. Jitender Bhadana and ors.
distance between his place of residence and treating hospital. An amount of Rs.70,000/- is awarded under the head of conveyance.
Expenditure on Special Diet:
45. Claimant remained admitted in hospital for about two years. Claimant has not filed any prescription containing recommendation for special diet, however, given his medical condition, it must have been imperative to eat nutritious and healthy diet for faster and efficient improvement. Claimant remained under active medical treatment for several months.
Accordingly, an amount of Rs.50,000/- is awarded to claimant towards expenditure on special diet.
Expenditure for attendant:
46. Claimant has not filed any bills to show that he had made payment towards attendant charges. However, he has examined PW2 Dr. Kushal Narula, Senior Resident, AIIMS Trauma Centre who deposed that the injured can not sit or stand for a long time period and he may need assistant for his daily routine work. Injured has been assessed with 46% permanent disability in relation to both lower limbs on account of grievous injuries sustained in the accident. Disability certificate received from the medical board, the petitioner has suffered 46% permanent physical impairment in relation to his both lower Petition No. : 98/2023 Page No.24/38 FIR NO. 67/2021 PS Hauz Khas Ram Mohan Trivedi vs. Jitender Bhadana and ors.
limbs. His condition has been opined to be non-progressive and not likely to improve.
Considering the prolonged hospitalization and the nature of injuries sustained, it is logical that the injured would have required services of attendant throughout period of hospitalization and medical care post hospitalization. Keeping in view the nature of injuries and disability suffered by the petitioner, he would have required assistance of some family member/attendant for doing her daily routine work for atleast six months, therefore, a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month for six months is also being awarded to the petitioner towards attendant charges. The petitioner is thus entitled to an amount of Rs.60,000/- (Rs. 10,000/- X 6 months) under this head.
LOSS OF EARNING DURING THE PERIOD OF TREATMENT:-
47. The petitioner/ injured stated that at the time of accident, he was working as a driver in Delhi and getting a salary of Rs.25,000/- per month. Admittedly, the petitioner has not placed any document to prove the same. Neither he has examined any witness to prove his salary. As per the aadhar card of the injured, he is a resident of Delhi. Hence, in the absence of any proof of income the minimum wages of an 'unskilled worker' in Delhi is taken into consideration which was Rs.15,492/- p.m at the time of accident i.e. 25.02.2021.
The injuries on the person of petitioner were such that Petition No. : 98/2023 Page No.25/38 FIR NO. 67/2021 PS Hauz Khas Ram Mohan Trivedi vs. Jitender Bhadana and ors.
he might have remained out of work for about 12 months. Hence I award a sum of Rs.1,85,904/- (Rs.15,492/- x 12 months) towards loss of income during period of treatment.
FUTURE LOSS OF EARNING ARISING OUT OF THE DISABILITY
48. The petitioner had suffered 46% permanent physical impairment in relation to his both lower limbs. It was held in the case of "Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar & Ors. I (2012) ACC 1 (SC)" :-
"In the context of loss of future earning, any physical disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with reference to the nature of work being performed by the person suffering the disability. This is the basic premise and once that is grasped, it clearly follows that the same injury or loss may affect two different persons in different ways. Take the case of a marginal farmer who does his cultivation work himself and ploughs his land with his own two hands; or the puller of a cycle-rickshaw, one of the main means of transport in hundreds of small towns all over the country. The loss of one of the legs either to the marginal farmer or the cycle-rickshaw-puller would be the end of the road insofar as their earning capacity is concerned. But in case of a person engaged in some kind of desk work in an office, the loss of a leg may not have the same effect. The loss of a leg (or for that matter the loss of any limb) to anyone is bound to have very traumatic effects on one's personal, family or social life but the Petition No. : 98/2023 Page No.26/38 FIR NO. 67/2021 PS Hauz Khas Ram Mohan Trivedi vs. Jitender Bhadana and ors.
loss of one of the legs to a person working in the office would not interfere with his work/earning capacity in the same degree as in the case of a marginal farmer or a cycle- rickshaw-puller.
The question of loss of earning capacity resulting from amputation of one the legs in the case of a tanker driver was considered by this Court in K. Janardhan v. United India Insurance Company Limited and another, (2008) 8 SCC 518. In that case, a tanker driver suffered serious injuries in a motor accident and as a result, his right leg was amputated upto the knee joint. He made a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation held that disability suffered by him as a result of the loss of the leg was 100% and awarded compensation to him on that basis. In appeal, the High Court, like in the present case, referred to the Schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and held that the loss of a leg on amputation amounted to reduction in the earning capacity by 60% and, accordingly, reduced the compensation awarded to the tanker driver. This Court set aside the High Court judgment and held that the tanker driver had suffered 100% disability and incapacity in earning his keep as a tanker driver as his right leg was amputated from the knee and, accordingly, restored the order passed by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation.
In K. Janardhan this Court also referred to and relied upon an earlier decision of the Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata (1976) 1 SCC 289, in which a Petition No. : 98/2023 Page No.27/38 FIR NO. 67/2021 PS Hauz Khas Ram Mohan Trivedi vs. Jitender Bhadana and ors.
carpenter who suffered an amputation of his left arm from the elbow was held to have suffered complete loss of his earning capacity.
In a more recent decision in Raj Kumar v.
Ajay Kumar and another, (2011) 1 SCC 343, this Court considered in great detail the correlation between the physical disability suffered in an accident and the loss of earning capacity resulting from it. In paragraphs 10, 11 and 13 of the judgment in Raj Kumar, this Court made the following observations:
Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of Petition No. : 98/2023 Page No.28/38 FIR NO. 67/2021 PS Hauz Khas Ram Mohan Trivedi vs. Jitender Bhadana and ors.
permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation.
What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation.
49. In a very recent judgment announced by the Supreme Court of India in case title Sri Anthony alias Anthony Swamy v. The Manging Director, K.S.R.T.C. on 10.06.2020. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the principles set out for grant of compensation in cases of permanent physical functional disability as mentioned above.
50. It was held in the case of "Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar & Ors. I (2012) ACC 1 (SC)" that in the context of loss of future earning, any physical disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with reference to the nature of work being Petition No. : 98/2023 Page No.29/38 FIR NO. 67/2021 PS Hauz Khas Ram Mohan Trivedi vs. Jitender Bhadana and ors.
performed by the person suffering the disability. This is the basic premise and once that is grasped, it clearly follows that the same injury or loss may affect two different persons in different ways. Take the case of a marginal farmer who does his cultivation work himself and ploughs his land with his own two hands, the loss of one of the legs to the marginal farmer would be the end of the road in so far his earning capacity is concerned. But in case of person engaged in some kind of desk work in an office, the loss of leg may not have same effect. The loss of a leg (or for that matter the loss of any limb) to any one is bound to have very traumatic effects on one's personal, family or social life but the loss of one of the legs to a person working in an office would not interfere with his work/earning capacity in the same degree as in the case of marginal farmer or a cycle rickshaw-puller. Reference was also made of the case "Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343".
51. In the present case, the petitioner was working as a TSR driver. He has suffered 46% permanent physical impairment in respect of his both lower limbs. In such cases, the effect of permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured has to be assessed first and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of the earnings. The petitioner has examined PW2 Dr. Kushal Narula, Senior Resident, AIIMS Trauma Centre who deposed that with these Petition No. : 98/2023 Page No.30/38 FIR NO. 67/2021 PS Hauz Khas Ram Mohan Trivedi vs. Jitender Bhadana and ors.
injuries, he can not perform any professional work and he can not drive an auto rickshaw. Therefore, as a matter of rule half of the disability percentage is struck off, however in the present case considering the condition of the injured and the opinion of the disability board, I take his functional disability as 100% i.e. 46%. As per the Aadhar Card, the date of birth of the petitioner is 10.07.1981. The accident took place on 25.02.2021. Hence, he was 40 years of age at the time of accident. Taking a multiplier of '15', the future loss of income comes to Rs.19,365/- (Rs.15,492/- + 15,492 x 25/100) x 12 x 15 x 46% = Rs.16,03,422/-. I therefore, award Rs.16,03,422/- to the petitioner towards Future Loss of Income on account of permanent disability.
A DAMAGES FOR PAIN, SUFFERING AND TRAUMA ON ACCOUNT OF INJURIES:-
52. While discussing the criteria to ascertain the compensation for pain and sufferings by victim of vehicular accident, observations of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Satya Narain vs. Jai Kisan, FAO No.:709/02, date of decision:
02.02.2007 can be considered:
12. On account of pain and suffering, suffice would it be to note that it is difficult to measure pain and suffering in terms of a money value. However, compensation which has to be paid must bear some objectives co-relation with the pain and suffering.
13. The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering would be :
(a) Nature of injury.
(b) Body part affected.Petition No. : 98/2023 Page No.31/38
FIR NO. 67/2021 PS Hauz Khas Ram Mohan Trivedi vs. Jitender Bhadana and ors.
(c) Duration of the treatment.
Applying the above criteria to the facts of the present case where petitioner/injured has suffered 46% permanent physical impairment in relation to his both lower limbs and keeping in view the period of hospitalization and duration of treatment, I am of the opinion that an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- would be just and fair compensation towards his pain and sufferings and enjoyment of life.
Loss of Amenities :
53. Due to the permanent disability, the petitioner would not be able to participate in the normal activities of his daily life to pursue his talents, recreation interests, hobbies and evocations.
The injuries would also have an effect on his social life. I therefore, award Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner towards loss of amenities.
The total compensation of the petitioner hence comes out to be :
MEDICAL EXPENSES : Nil EXPENDITURE ON CONVEYANCE : Rs.70,000/-
EXPENDITURE ON SPECIAL DIET : Rs.50,000/-
EXPENDITURE FOR ATTENDANT : Rs. 60,000/-
LOSS OF EARNING : Rs. 1,85,904/-
FUTURE LOSS OF EARNING :Rs.16,03,422/-
PAIN & SUFFERINGS &
ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :Rs.2,00,000/-
LOSS OF AMENITIES : Rs.1,00,000/-
Petition No. : 98/2023 Page No.32/38
FIR NO. 67/2021 PS Hauz Khas
Ram Mohan Trivedi vs. Jitender Bhadana and ors.
==========
TOTAL :Rs.22,69,326/-
Interim award passed on 24.05.2024 : Rs.25,000/-
===========
: Rs.22,44,326/-
============
RELIEF
54. In view of my findings on the issues, I award a sum of Rs.22,44,326/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Forty four Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Six only) to petitioner Ram Mohan Trivedi as compensation along-with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the DAR till its realization.
Out of this amount, an amount of Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Only) is directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit in the following phased manner :
• Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 01 year. • Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 02 years. • Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 03 years. • Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 04 years. • Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 05 years. • Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 06 years. • Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 07 years. • Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 08 years.
Remaining amount be released to him in his saving bank account.
Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
55. In consonance to the idea by which part of the awarded amount is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit / savings account by Petition No. : 98/2023 Page No.33/38 FIR NO. 67/2021 PS Hauz Khas Ram Mohan Trivedi vs. Jitender Bhadana and ors.
Hon'ble high Court, respondent no.3 is directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the petitioners with State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, against account of petitioner within a period of 45 days from today, failing which respondent no. 3 shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
56. The respondent no. 3 is directed to credit the amount directly to the MACT account of State Bank of India, District Court, Saket branch. Details of the bank i.e. IFSC code etc. have been provided to the Ld. counsel for the respondent no. 3.
57. The award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT SOUTH SAKET COURT A/c 42706751873 IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir alongwith calculation of interest and to the Counsel for the petitioner.
58. MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE'(MCTAP)
59. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the State Bank of India, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, is directed to Petition No. : 98/2023 Page No.34/38 FIR NO. 67/2021 PS Hauz Khas Ram Mohan Trivedi vs. Jitender Bhadana and ors.
keep the awarded amount in the "fixed deposit / saving account'' in the following manner :-
• The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the petitioner/claimant by Automatic Credit of interest of their saving bank account with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
• Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to petitioner/claimant after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimants / petitioners to facilitate identity. • No cheque book be issued to petitioner/claimant without the permission of this Court.
• The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the petitioner/claimant alongwith the photocopy of the FDR's .
• The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to petitioner/claimant at the end of the fixed deposit period. • No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court. • Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court.
• On the request of petitioner/claimant, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience.
• Petitioner/claimant shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, New Delhi.
• The bank is also directed to get the nomination form filled by the claimant at the time of preparation of FDRs. • The bank is also directed to keep the money received from the respondents in an FDR in the name of the bank till the FDRs are prepared in the name of the claimant, so that the benefit of better interest may be given to the claimant for the said period. • The Manager, State Bank of India, District Court Saket branch is directed not to release any amount to the petitioner from this branch, unless ordered by the Tribunal in terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 and CM Petition No. : 98/2023 Page No.35/38 FIR NO. 67/2021 PS Hauz Khas Ram Mohan Trivedi vs. Jitender Bhadana and ors.
Applications No. 32859/2017, 41125-41127/2017 in Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. dated 09.03.2018. It is made clear that the amount including the maturity amount of the FDRs shall be released to the petitioner through RTGS/NEFT directly in the personal bank account of the petitioner of the bank nearest to his place of residence, the details of which have been given by the petitioner to the Tribunal and same details shall be given by them to the Manager SBI, District Court Saket branch.
DIRECTIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.3/ INSURANCE COMPANY • The Respondent no. 3 is directed to file the compliance report of its having deposited the awarded amount with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this Tribunal within a period of 45 days from today.
• The Respondent no. 3 is directed to furnish a copy of this award alongwith the cheque of the awarded amount to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, so as to facilitate the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch to have the identification of the claimant/petitioner in whose favour the award has been passed.
• The Respondent no.3 shall intimate the claimant/petitioner about its having deposited the cheque in favor of the claimant in terms of the award, at the address of the claimant mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate him to withdraw the same.
• Copy of this award / judgment be given to the claimant who is directed to furnish the same to the Manager of State Bank of Petition No. : 98/2023 Page No.36/38 FIR NO. 67/2021 PS Hauz Khas Ram Mohan Trivedi vs. Jitender Bhadana and ors.
India, Saket Court Branch for necessary compliance after his having received the notice of the deposit of awarded amount by the respondent no.3.
• The case is now fixed for compliance by the respondent no. 3 for 15.11.2024.
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD
AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE OF RAM MOHAN
TRIVEDI TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1) Date of accident : 25.02.2021
2) Name of the injured : Ram Mohan Trivedi
3) Age of the injured : 40 years
4) Occupation of the injured : -
5) Income of the injured : Rs.15,492/- per month
minimum wages of Delhi
6) Nature of injury : Grievous
Computation of Compensation
S. Heads Awarded by the
No. Claims Tribunal
1 Pecuniary Loss :
i Expenditure on treatment Nil
ii Expenditure on conveyance Rs.70,000/-
iii Expenditure on special diet Rs.50,000/-
iv Expenditure on attendant Rs.60,000/-
2 Loss of earning capacity Rs.1,85,904/-
I Loss of Income Rs.16,03,422/-
ii Any other loss which may require any special ---
treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life.
2 Non-Pecuniary Loss :Petition No. : 98/2023 Page No.37/38
FIR NO. 67/2021 PS Hauz Khas Ram Mohan Trivedi vs. Jitender Bhadana and ors.
i Compensation for mental and physical shock ---
ii Pain and suffering Rs.2,00,000/- iii Loss of amenities Rs.1,00,000/- iv Dis-figuration and marriage prospects --- v Loss of marriage prospects --- vi Future Loss of income due to disability --- 3 Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity : (i) Percentage of disability assessed and nature ---
of disability as permanent or temporary
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in ---
relation to disability 4 Interim award passed on 24.05.2024 Rs.25000/- 5 TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.22,44,326/-
6 INTEREST AWARDED 9% 7 Total amount of interest Rs.3,11,400/-
8 Total amount including interest Rs.25,55,726/- 9 Award amount released Rs.9,55,726/-
10 Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.16,00,000/-
11 Mode of disbursement of the award amount Some amount be
to the claimant(s) released to the
injured and some
amount are directed
to be kept in the form
of FDR
11 Next date for compliance of the award. 15.11.2024
Pronounced in the open court
on 30th SEPTEMBER, 2024
(SUDESH KUMAR)
Presiding Officer : MACT (S)
Saket Courts : New Delhi
Petition No. : 98/2023 Page No.38/38
FIR NO. 67/2021 PS Hauz Khas