Delhi District Court
Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Company Ltd on 8 October, 2025
Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 1 of48
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHAMA GUPTA, PRESIDING
OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
New No. 450066/16
UNIQUE ID No.: DLNW01-000919-2014
Geeta Trehan
W/o Late Sh. Kamal Trehan
R/o H. No. G-29/105, Sector-3,
Rohini, Delhi-110085
........ Petitioner/claimant
Versus
1. United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Savitri Chambers-II, D-13, L.S.C.
Prashant Vihar, Outer Ring Road,
Rohini, Delhi-110085
........Insurance Company/R1
2. Kamal Trehan (now deceased)
through his Legal Heirs
A. Geeta Trehan W/o Late Sh. Kamal Trehan
B. Dheeraj Trehan S/o Late Sh. Kamal Trehan
C. Mohit Trehan S/o Late Sh. Kamal Trehan
All R/o H. No. G-29/105, Sector-3,
Rohini, Delhi-110085
D. Mrs. Preeti D/o Late Sh. Kamal Trehan
W/o Sh. Anubhav
R/o H.No. 504/23, Gauri Shankar Mandir,
Mohan Nagar, Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar, Haryana-124507
....... Driver-cum-owner/R2
..... Respondents
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 13.01.2014
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 08.10.2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.10.2025
FORM - V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
Page 1 of48
Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 2 of48
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE
MENTIONED IN THE AWARD AS PER FORMAT
REFERRED IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
DELHI HIGH COURT IN FAO 842/2003 RAJESH TYAGI Vs.
JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018.
1. Date of the accident 05.10.2013
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the 16.09.2015/
investigating officer to the Claims 13.01.2014
Tribunal
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the 16.09.2015
investigating officer to the insurance
company.
4. Date of filing of Report under section Not available on
173 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan record
Magistrate
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident 16.09.2015
Information Report (DAR) by the
investigating Officer before Claims
Tribunal
6. Date of Service of DAR on the 16.09.2015
Insurance Company
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant 16.09.2015
(s).
8. Whether DAR was complete in all Yes
respects?
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR No
removed later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the Yes
documents filed with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or No
deficiency on the part of the
Investigating Officer? If so, whether
any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated 16.09.2015
Page 2 of48
Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 3 of48
Officer by the insurance Company.
13. Name, address and contact number of Sh. V.K. Gupta,
the Designated Officer of the Insurance Ld. Counsel for
Company. insurance
company
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Yes
Insurance Company submitted his
report within 30 days of the DAR?
(Clause 22)
15. Whether the insurance company No
admitted the liability? If so, whether the
Designated Officer of the insurance
company fairly computed the
compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or N/A
deficiency on the part of the Designated
Officer of the Insurance Company? If
so, whether any action/direction
warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to Legal offer filed
the offer of the Insurance Company . but not fairly
computed
18. Date of the Award 08.10.2025
19. Whether the award was passed with the No
consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed Yes
to open saving bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were 17.05.2024
directed to open saving bank account (s)
near his place of residence and produce
PAN Card and Aadhar Card and the
direction to the bank not issue any
cheque book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an endorsement to
this effect on the passbook(s).
22. Date on which the claimant (s) 19.09.2024
produced the passbook of their saving
Page 3 of48
Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 4 of48
bank account near the place of their
residence along with the endorsement,
PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned
Claimant(s) above
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Petitioner Geeta
claimant(s) and the address of the bank Trehan, Savings
with IFSC Code Bank A/c
No.25491010005
1737, Andhra
Bank, Rohini,
Sector-3 Branch,
Delhi,
IFSC :
ANDB0002549
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank Yes
account(s) is near his place of
residence?
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined Yes
at the time of passing of the award to
ascertain his/their financial condition.
27. Account number/CIF No, MICR 41065170303,
number, IFSC Code, name and branch 110002427,
of the bank of the Claims Tribunal in SBIN0010323,
which the award amount is to be SBI, Rohini
deposited/transferred. (in terms of order Courts, Delhi
dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi vs
Jaibir Singh.
JUDGMENT
1. The present claim proceedings have emanated from a claim petition U/s 166 read with Section 140 of The Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (herein after referred as M.V. Act), as filed by the petitioner namely Geeta Trehan on 13.01.2014. Subsequently, Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter Page 4 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 5 of48 referred as DAR), was filed in this case on 16.09.2015, with reference to FIR No. 300/13, U/s 279/337/304A IPC, PS Kanjhawala, Delhi, in respect of injuries, sustained by the petitioner namely Geeta Trehan, along with other injured persons, in a road traffic accident, that took place on 05.10.2013, at about 5.45 am, at Kanjhawala Qutab Garh Road, Village Ladpur, Delhi. Subsequently, abated chargesheet was filed by the IO, against Kamal Trehan S/o Sh. Rajpal Trehan (hereinafter referred as the driver-cum- owner/respondent no.2/R2), who has also expired in the case accident, for the alleged commission of offence U/s 279/338/304A IPC, as the injuries sustained by the petitioner, was opined to be grievous in nature. The Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal, vide order dated 16.09.2015, treated the DAR, as claim petition U/s 166(4) of the M.V. Act and the same was clubbed with the claim petition, vide order dated 22.03.2018.
2. Perusal of the record further reveals that common DAR was filed by the IO on 16.09.2015, qua the injured persons namely Geeta Trehan, Dheeraj Trehan, Basanti, Sushila, Deepika and Kaushalya Devi. However, the said DAR was dismissed for non-prosecution on 27.02.2017 and thereafter, an application U/o IX Rule 4 R/w Section 151 CPC, was filed on behalf of the injured persons namely, Geeta Trehan, Dheeraj Trehan and Deepika, seeking restoration of the said DAR. But, subsequently, the application moved qua the injured Deepika, for restoration Page 5 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 6 of48 of DAR was dismissed as withdrawn on 06.06.2017 and the application qua the injured Geeta Trehan and Dheeraj Trehan was allowed on 22.03.2018 and the said DAR was restored, only qua the injured Geeta Trehan and Dheeraj Trehan. Perusal of the order sheet dated 22.11.2017, further reveals that the injured persons namely Basanti, Sushila and Kaushalya Devi have been served but, no one has appeared on their behalf, for restoration of DAR qua them, therefore, DAR/claim petition qua them, is deemed to be dismissed, vide order dated 27.02.2017.
3. Brief facts of the case, as discernible from the DAR as well as claim petition, filed by the petitioner, including the documents annexed there with, are that, on 05.10.2013, the petitioner Geeta Trehan W/o Late Kamal Trehan (hereinafter referred as the claimant/petitioner/injured), was travelling in a Maruti van, bearing registration no. DL-5CC-0255 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle), along with Dheeraj Trehan, Basanti, Sushila, Deepika and Kaushalya Devi and they were going to Village Jatkhor, Delhi, to attend a Sangat (spiritual gathering). It was further averred that the offending vehicle was driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, by its driver/R2 Late Kamal Trehan S/o Rajpal Trehan. It was further averred that when they reached at Kanjhawala Qutabgarh Road, in front of Village Ladpur, the offending vehicle collided against the divider of the road and as a result of the said impact, the petitioner along Page 6 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 7 of48 with other persons sustained grievous injuries. It was further averred that thereafter, the petitioner along with the other injured persons were taken by PCR van, to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi (hereinafter referred as SGM Hospital), where the petitioner was medically examined, vide MLC, bearing No. 18860/13, as per which, injuries sustained by the petitioner, was opined to be grievous in nature. It was further averred that R2 Kamal Trehan has also sustained fatal injuries and he was declared brought dead, vide MLC No. 18674/13.
4. As per DAR, at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was registered in the name of R2, who was also driving the same and it was insured with United India Insurance Company Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as insurance company/R1), vide Policy No. 2219003113P100398339, for the period 20.04.2013 to 19.04.2014.
5. It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of accident, R2 has also sustained fatal injuries and he expired in the case accident and in his place, his LRs i.e Geeta Trehan/wife (petitioner herein), Dheeraj Trehan, Preeti, Mohit Trehan and Rajpal Trehan, were impleaded. However, during the course of trial, the LRs of deceased R2 namely Mohit Trehan, Preeti and Rajpal Trehan have given their affidavits, before the Tribunal, stating that they will be represented by the petitioner Mrs. Geeta Trehan, in the present case. The LRs of the deceased R2 have not filed Page 7 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 8 of48 any written statement to the claim petition/DAR.
6. United India Insurance Company Ltd./R1, has filed a legal offer, wherein R1 offered to pay compensation of Rs. 46,000/-, plus original actual medical expenses if any, to the petitioner. R1/insurance company further admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with R1, vide Policy No. 2219003113P100398339, for the period 20.04.2013 to 19.04.2014, in the name of R2/Kamal Trehan.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Learned Predecessor, vide order dated 30.05.2022:-
1. Whether on 05.10.2013 at about 6.45 am, at Kanjhawala Qutubgarh Road, opposite Ladpur Gaon, Smt Geeta Trehan had sustained grievous injuries due to rash and negligent driving of Maruti Omni bearing registration no. DL5C-C-0255, which was being driven by its driver/R2, namely, Kamal Trehan? OPP
2. Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
8. After framing of issues, opportunities were given to all the parties, to prove their respective averments, by leading evidence in support of the same. In support of her case, the petitioner examined five witnesses. It is worth while to note here that there are two connected petitions, arising out Page 8 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 9 of48 of the same accident and both the files were consolidated, for the purpose of evidence and the file bearing MACT no.449556/16, titled as Dheeraj Trehan vs. United India Insurance Co,. Ltd. and Anr. was considered as the main file, for the purpose of evidence.
9. In support of both the claim petitions, Sh. Dheeraj Trehan, got himself examined as PW1, by way of evidence affidavit Ex.PW1/1. In his evidence, he has placed reliance on copy of his Aadhar Card as Ex.PW1/A, copy of his PAN card as Ex.PW1/B, his original medical bills as Ex.PW1/C (Colly) and copy of DAR filed by the IO as Ex.PW1/D (Colly). He is the son of Geeta Trehan as well as the eye witness. His deposition qua the accident in question and injuries sustained by him, in the case accident, is reiteration of the facts mentioned in the DAR/claim petition. He further deposed that after the accident, FIR no. 300/13, U/s 279/337/304A IPC, was lodged at PS Kanjhawala, Delhi.
He further deposed that he was not satisfied with the treatment, as received by him at SGM Hospital, therefore, he was shifted to GTK, Adarsh Nagar, where ORIF right femur was done. He further deposed that after the operation, he was drowsy and shifted to Saroj Hospital & Heart Institute on 07.10.2013, where he remains admitted till 26.10.2013. He further deposed that on account of the injuries sustained by him, he became permanently disabled. He further deposed that thereafter, he was admitted at Primus Hospital, Delhi, for removal of implant, on Page 9 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 10 of48 22.04.2017, from where, he was discharged on 23.04.2017. He further deposed that even at the time of filing of the petition, he was continuously under treatment, at home. He further deposed that on account of the injuries sustained by him, in the case accident, he became dependent on others, for each and every work. He further deposed that he was not able to attend his calls of nature, unable to stand, walk, unable to do his personal work and study. He further deposed that as he was also unable to carry out other work, he had to engage a full time attendant, for which, he has incurred approximately Rs. 4 lacs. He further deposed that he has incurred approximately Rs. 5 lacs, on his treatment, till date. He further deposed that prior to the date of accident, he was possessing good health, he was a student of final year of engineering course and was earning Rs. 30,000/- per month, by way of tuitions. He further deposed that due to the accident, he was confined to bed for a long time. He further deposed that the accident was caused due to the high speed of the offending vehicle as well as rash and negligent driving, by the driver of the offending vehicle, who was also the owner of the offending vehicle. He further deposed that the driver/owner of the offending vehicle, has also died in the same accident and hence, the proceedings against him was abated. He further deposed that the respondent no.1 was the insurance company, with whom the offending vehicle was insured, at the time of accident and R1 is liable to pay the compensation. He further deposed that though no amount of compensation is Page 10 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 11 of48 suitable to him but, on conservative basis, he is claiming Rs.15 lacs as compensation, towards medical expenses, pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life, special diet and conveyance, loss of income, future loss of income, attendant charges, loss of amenities of life and loss of marriage prospects.
10. PW1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the insurance company/R1, wherein he deposed that the driver cum owner of the vehicle no. DL5CC0255, in which he was travelling, at the time of accident, was his father. He further deposed that he and his mother were residing with his father, as on the date of accident. He further deposed that they had cordial relations with each other. He further deposed that there were seven persons, including the driver, in the vehicle, at the time of accident. He further deposed that his mother was sitting besides his father, on the front seat, while all other five persons were sitting on the rear seat of the vehicle. He further deposed that he was sitting on the last seat. He further deposed that his father was driving the vehicle, in a rash and negligent manner, for the last about 15 minutes. He further deposed that the vehicle did not stop anywhere, in the said 15 minutes. He further deposed that he as well as other passengers did not try to get the vehicle stopped or to leave the vehicle. He further deposed that he does not remember, whether he had given any statement to the police. He denied the suggestion, that no such accident took place, with the said vehicle or that Page 11 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 12 of48 the said vehicle has falsely been implicated, in collusion with the police officials, just to claim false compensation. He further deposed that he does not have any permanent disability certificate. He denied the suggestion, that he has not suffered any permanent disability or loss of earning capacity, due to the accident. He further denied the suggestion, that he has not incurred any amount, on his treatment or that the medical bills filed on record are false and procured. He denied the suggestion, that he was not required to take any bed rest, due to the accident. He further deposed that he does not have any details of students or document, to show that he was imparting any tuitions, at the time of accident. He denied the suggestion, that he was not imparting any tuitions or that he was not earning any amount, as on the date of accident. He further denied the suggestion, that he was not required to take any special diet or that he has not incurred any amount on special diet, conveyance and attendant. He further deposed that he does not have any details of attendants or documents, to show that he has engaged any attendant or that he has incurred any amount on attendant. He denied the suggestion, that neither he was required any attendant nor he incurred any amount on attendant. He further deposed that he got married on 22.01.2022. He denied the suggestion, that he has not suffered any loss of marriage prospects, as claimed by him, in his affidavit of evidence. He further deposed that he was not having any medi-claim policy or reimbursement facility, for the medical expenses, in respect of the accident, Page 12 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 13 of48 as on the date of accident.
11. Smt. Geeta Trehan, got herself examined as PW2, by way of evidence affidavit Ex.PW2/1. In her evidence, PW2 has placed reliance on copy of her Aadhar Card as Ex.PW2/A, copy of her PAN card as Ex.PW2/B, her original medical bills as Ex.PW2/C (Colly), original disability certificate as Ex.PW2/D and copy of DAR filed by the IO as Ex.PW2/E (Colly). She is also one of the injured as well as the eye witness. Her deposition qua the accident in question and injuries sustained by her, in the case accident, is reiteration of the facts mentioned in the DAR/claim petition. She further deposed that due to the accident, she, her son Dheeraj Trehan, her husband/R2 and other members, sustained grievous injuries, all over their body and her husband/driver Kamal Trehan, succumbed to the injuries, sustained by him, in the said accident. She further deposed that she was taken to SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi, where she received treatment, vide MLC No. 18850, dated 05.10.2013. She further deposed that she is continuing her treatment at home, from Dr. Sanjay Singh, Chawla Hospital. She further deposed that on account of the injuries, sustained by her, in the above said accident, she has suffered permanent disability due to which, she has to depend on others, for each and every work. She further deposed that she was not able to attend her calls of nature, unable to stand, walk, unable to do her personal work, Page 13 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 14 of48 cooking, cleaning, washing etc. She further deposed that since she was unable to carry out work, after the accident, she had to engage a full time maid/attendant, to whom, she has been paying a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month. She further deposed that after the accident, FIR No. 300/13, U/s 279/337/304A IPC, was lodged at PS Kanjhawala, Delhi. She further deposed that she was not satisfied with the treatment received by her at SGM Hospital. She further deposed that on 06.10.2013, she was shifted to Saroj Hospital & Heart Institute, Delhi, where she was operated and discharged on 11.10.2013 and thereafter, she was admitted at Primus Super Speciality Hospital, Delhi, on 01.05.2014 and discharged on 08.05.2014. She further deposed that on account of the injuries, sustained by her, she became permanently disabled. She further deposed that she was possessing good health and physique, at the time of accident. She further deposed that she was a housewife, at the time of accident and due to the accident, her life is affected badly, as she was confined to bed, for a long time. She further deposed that the accident was caused due to high speed, rash and negligent driving, by the driver of the offending vehicle, who was also the owner of the offending vehicle. She further deposed that the driver/owner of the offending vehicle have also died in the same accident and hence, the proceedings against driver and owner was abated. She further deposed that the respondent no.1 is the insurance company, with whom the offending vehicle was insured, at the time of accident and R1 is liable to pay the Page 14 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 15 of48 compensation. She further deposed that though no amount of compensation is suitable to her but, on conservative basis, she is claiming Rs.15 lacs as compensation, towards medical expenses, pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, special diet and conveyance, loss of income, future loss of income, attendant charges and loss of amenities of life.
12. PW2 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the insurance company/R1, wherein she deposed that the driver cum owner of the vehicle no. DL5CC0255, in which she was travelling, at the time of accident, was her husband. She further deposed that she and her son were residing with her husband, as on the date of accident. She further deposed that they had cordial relations with each other. She further deposed that there were seven persons, including the driver, in the vehicle, at the time of accident. She further deposed that she was sitting besides her husband, on the front seat, while all other five persons were sitting on the rear seat of the vehicle. She further deposed that her son was sitting on the last seat. She further deposed that she does not know, whether her husband was driving the vehicle, in a rash and negligent manner or not. She further deposed that she as well as other passengers did not try to get the vehicle stopped or to leave the vehicle. She further deposed that she does not remember, whether she had given any statement to the police. She denied the suggestion, that no such accident took place, with the said vehicle or that the said vehicle has falsely been implicated, in collusion with the police Page 15 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 16 of48 officials, just to claim false compensation. She further denied the suggestion, that she has not suffered any permanent disability or loss of earning capacity, due to the accident. She further denied the suggestion, that she has not incurred any amount, on her treatment or that the medical bills filed by her on record, are false and procured. She further denied the suggestion, that she was not required to take any bed rest, due to the accident. She further deposed that she is a housewife. She denied the suggestion, that she was not required to take any special diet or that she has not incurred any amount on special diet, conveyance and attendant. She further deposed that she does not have any details of attendants or documents, to show that she has engaged any attendant or that she has incurred any amount on attendant. She denied the suggestion, that neither she required any attendant nor she incurred any amount on attendant. She further deposed that she was not having any medi-claim policy or reimbursement facility, for the medical expenses, in respect of the accident, as on the date of accident. She further deposed that her date of birth is 29.06.1962.
13. The petitioner further examined Sh. Rajeev, Technician, Medical Record Department, Primus Super Speciality Hospital, Chanakyapuri, Delhi as PW3. He was a summoned witness and deposed that he has been authorised to depose before this court, in both the cases, vide authority letter Ex.PW3/1, dated 16.09.2022, issued by Primus Super Page 16 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 17 of48 Speciality Hospital. He further deposed that he has brought the summoned record, qua the patient Dheeraj Trehan, as well as Geeta Trehan i.e. medical treatment record and medical bills, for the treatment taken by them in their hospital. He further deposed that Sh. Dheeraj Trehan remains admitted in their hospital from 22.04.2017 to 23.04.2017. He further exhibited the complete medical record, along with medical bills, pertaining to Dheeraj Trehan, as Ex.PW3/2, running into 1 to 73 pages.
14. He further deposed that he has also brought the summoned record, qua the patient Geeta Trehan i.e. medical treatment record and medical bills, for the treatment taken by her, in their hospital. He further deposed that Ms. Geeta Trehan remains admitted in their hospital from 01.05.2014 to 08.05.2014. He further exhibited the complete medical record, along with medical bills, pertaining to GeetaTrehan, as Ex.PW3/3, running into 1 to 106 pages.
15. PW3 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the insurance company/R1, wherein he deposed that their hospital charged a total amount of Rs. 21,320/-, from the patient Dheeraj Trehan, towards his treatment. He further deposed that all the original medical bills and treatment record was given to the patient. He further deposed that their hospital charged a total amount of Rs. 2,26,714/-, from the patient Geeta Trehan, towards the treatment. He further deposed that all the original medical bills and treatment record was Page 17 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 18 of48 given to the patient. He further deposed that he does not have any personal knowledge, about the treatment and the record filed by him, as on the date of his deposition in the court. He denied the suggestion, that the record filed by him in the court, is false and fabricated.
16. The petitioner further examined Ms. Sapna, Medical Record Technician, Saroj Super Speciality Hospital, Madhuban Chowk, Delhi as PW4. She was a summoned witness and on the date of her deposition, she has brought the summoned record, that is, duplicate medical bills of the patients, namely, Dheeraj Trehan and Geeta Trehan. She exhibited the final medical bills of patient Dheeraj Trehan, dated 30.10.2013, for an amount of Rs. 3,12,905/-, (after discount of Rs.1,41,912/-), paid by the patient in cash, as Ex.PW4/1 (colly).
17. She further exhibited the medical bills of the patient Geeta Trehan, dated 15.10.2013, for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, (after discount of Rs.15,600/-), paid by the patient in cash, as Ex.PW4/2 (colly). She further deposed that the medical treatment record of both the patients were not available with the hospital record, as the same were weeded out, as per the directions of the Medical Superintendent of the hospital, as per their hospital policy.
18. PW4 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the insurance company/R1, wherein she deposed that she does not have Page 18 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 19 of48 any personal knowledge, about the treatment of the injured and the record brought by her, on the date of her deposition. She further deposed that the records filed by her, were computerized record and print of the same has been taken by the Information Technology Department. She further deposed that the said computer remains under the control of the officials of I.T. Department. She further deposed that she has no concern with the said department. She further deposed that she has not brought any certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act, in support of the record filed by her, on the date of her deposition. She denied the suggestion, that the record filed by her were false and fabricated or that the same does not match with the computer maintained in the hospital. She further deposed that on the date of her deposition, she has not brought any written document, to show that the record has been weeded out or that there was any direction, regarding the same. She voluntarily deposed that she can produce the circular/policy of the hospital, regarding weeding out of the record, if required. She denied the suggestion, that no record has been weeded out or that the patient did not underwent any treatment in their hospital. She further deposed that the entire original medical bills and discharge summary of the patient were given to the patient. She denied the suggestion, that she has filed false and fabricated record or that she was deposing falsely, to favour the petitioner.
Page 19 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 20 of48
19. The petitioner further examined Dr. Adarsh Kishore Singh, S.R, Orthopedic, Dr. BSA Hospital, Delhi as PW5. He was a summoned witness and he deposed that he has appeared on behalf of Dr. Gurvinder Singh, Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopedic, Dr. BSA Hospital, to depose in this case. He further deposed that the patient Geeta Trehan, aged 56 years, was medically examined by the Board of Doctors of Dr. BSA Hospital, to ascertain her permanent disability, if any. He further deposed that he has seen the disability certificate No. 1590, dated 08.06.2019, issued by the Board, consisting of Dr. Gurvinder Singh and Dr. Mohit Sharma, qua the patient Geeta Trehan. He further deposed that he can identify the signatures of Dr. Gurvinder Singh, as he has worked under him. He further deposed that the said disability certificate is already exhibited as Ex.PW2/D, bearing the signatures of Dr. Gurvinder Singh at point A and Dr. Mohit Sharma at point B. He further deposed that as per the said disability certificate, the patient has suffered permanent physical disability, to the tune of 16%, in relation to her right lower limb, with diagnosis of post operative stiffness of right hip. He further deposed that the patient would be unable to do squatting and sitting cross legged.
20. PW5 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the insurance company/R1, wherein he deposed that he was working at Dr. BSA Hospital, since 2018. He further deposed that the patient was neither examined in his presence, nor the said Page 20 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 21 of48 certificate was issued or signed in his presence. He further deposed that he cannot tell the disability of the patient, qua the whole body, as there are no such guidelines. He admitted that the assessment sheet, regarding disability was also not prepared in his presence. He further deposed that he does not have any personal knowledge of the case. He denied the suggestion, that the disability has not been assessed, as per guidelines.
21. This Tribunal has heard the final arguments, as advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record.
22. On appreciation of evidence, as adduced by the parties, in support of their respective versions, the issue-wise findings of this Tribunal, are reproduced herein below:
ISSUE No. 1Whether on 05.10.2013 at about 6.45 am, at Kanjhawala Qutubgarh Road, opposite Ladpur Gaon, Smt Geeta Trehan had sustained grievous injuries due to rash and negligent driving of Maruti Omni bearing registration no. DL5C-C-0255, which was being driven by its driver/R1, namely, Kamal Trehan? OPP
23. The onus of proving this issue, on preponderance of probabilities, was upon the petitioner/claimant. For deciding the present issue, the testimony of PW1 Dheeraj Trehan and PW2 Geeta Trehan are relevant, being eyewitnesses as well as the injured.
Page 21 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 22 of48
24. In their respective evidence affidavits Ex. PW1/1 and Ex.
PW2/1, both PW1 and PW2 deposed that on 05.10.2013, they were travelling, along with Basanti, Sushila, Deepika and Kaushalya Devi, in Maruti van, bearing registration no. DL-5CC-0255, to go to Village Jatkhor, Delhi, to attend a sangat (spiritual gathering), which was driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, by its driver/R2 Late Kamal Trehan S/o Rajpal Trehan. They further deposed that when they reached at Kanjhawala Qutabgarh Road, in front of Village Ladpur, the offending vehicle, being at a high speed, got collided against the divider of the road, as a result of which, all the occupants of the offending vehicle, including R2 sustained grievous injuries and later, R2 succumbed to the injuries, sustained by him, in the case accident. They further deposed that thereafter, they were taken by PCR van, to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi, where Geeta Trehan was medically examined, vide MLC bearing No. 18860/13, as per which, injuries sustained by her, was opined to be grievous in nature and R2 Kamal Trehan was declared brought dead, vide MLC No. 18674/13.
25. Both PW1 and PW2 were cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the insurance company/R1 but, R1, failed to impeach the credibility of PW1 and PW2 and failed to elicit any admissions, from the testimony of PW1 and PW2, so as to prove that the alleged accident has not taken place, with the offending vehicle. Further suggestions were also put to Page 22 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 23 of48 PW1 and PW2, that no such accident took place with the offending vehicle and there was no negligence at all, on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle or that the said vehicle has falsely been implicated in the case, in collusion with the police officials, just to claim false compensation but, PW1 and PW2 denied the said suggestions.
26. Even otherwise, since R2 has expired and even LRs of R2, failed to file any written statement and also failed to cross- examine PW1 and PW2, despite being granted opportunity, therefore, LRs of R2 deemed to have admitted, that there was rashness and negligence, on the part of R2, in causing the accident in question. Further LRs of R2 failed to lead any evidence, to prove that there was no negligence on the part of R2 or that he was falsely implicated in this case by the IO, in connivance with the petitioner. Further, LRs of R2 also failed to prove that they have ever approached to any higher authority, with respect to false implication of R2, in the present case. Thus, by the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the petitioner has been able to prove, that there was rashness and negligence, on the part of R2, resulting in the case accident.
27. Consequently, in view of the unrebutted testimony of PW1 and PW2, which stands corroborated by the criminal case record, wherein, R2 was shown as the driver of the offending vehicle, responsible for causing the accident in question, it stands duly proved, that the accident, in which Page 23 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 24 of48 petitioner has sustained injuries, has taken place, due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R2.
Issue no.1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE No. 2Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?OPP
28. In view of the findings of this Tribunal, qua issue no.1 regarding negligence of R1, resulting in the occurrence of the case accident, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion, that the petitioner/claimant is entitled to compensation, in respect of pain and suffering, medical expenses, special diet charges, conveyance charges and other expenditure incurred by her, on account of the injuries, sustained by her, in the above-mentioned road traffic accident. This Tribunal shall now examine the entire evidence, including the documents of the petitioner/ claimant, for the purpose of arriving at a finding, about the quantum of compensation, to which the petitioner/claimant is entitled.
29. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claim Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation, which appears to it to be just Page 24 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 25 of48 and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly.
MEDICAL EXPENSES
30. To prove the amount spent by the petitioner, on her treatment, the petitioner/PW2 got herself examined as PW2, by way of evidence affidavit Ex.PW2/1, wherein she deposed that after the accident, initially, she was taken by PCR van to SGM Hospital, where, she was medically examined, vide MLC No. 18860/13, as per which, injuries sustained by her, was opined to be grievous in nature. She further deposed that as she was not satisfied with the treatment at SGM Hospital, therefore, on 06.10.2013, she was shifted to Saroj Hospital & Heart Institute, Delhi, where she was operated and was discharged on 11.10.2013 and thereafter, she was admitted at Primus Super Speciality Hospital, Delhi, on 01.05.2014, from where, she discharged on 08.05.2014. In her evidence, PW2 has placed reliance on her original medical bills as Ex.PW2/C (Colly). Perusal of the original medical bills of the petitioner, reveals that she has incurred aggregate expenditure of Rs. 3,53,420/-, on her medical treatment. The said bills stands further proved by the petitioner, by calling the records, from both the said hospitals, which were produced by the summoned witnesses PW3 and PW4. Accordingly, in view of the Page 25 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 26 of48 original medical bills, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs. 3,53,420/-, towards medical expenses. Thus, this Tribunal deems it appropriate, to award compensation of Rs.3,53,420/-, to the petitioner, under the head of medical expenses.
SPECIAL DIET AND CONVEYANCE
31. The petitioner has sought compensation, on account of her expenditure, on special diet and conveyance, however, she has not exactly specified the amount claimed by her, under the said head. The petitioner has also not placed on record, any prescription slip of a doctor, medical practitioner or dietitian, issued in her name (the name of the petitioner), advising her to take any form of special diet or any bill of special diet, such as high protein diet or liquid diet or nutritional supplements, for speedy recovery of the injuries sustained by her, in the case accident.
32. Further, she has also not placed on record, any bill of conveyance, such as bills raised by any private taxi service or ambulance service, availed by her, for travelling to the hospital, from her residence or vice versa, during her treatment period. In such circumstances, the requirement of special diet and conveyance, if any faced by the petitioner, during her treatment period, has to be ascertained, in accordance with the nature of injuries, sustained by the petitioner.
Page 26 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 27 of48
33. In this context, a perusal of court record reveals that as per the medical treatment papers of the petitioner Ex.PW2/C(Colly), as well as MLC filed with the DAR Ex.PW2/E, the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries, due to the accident and initially, she was taken to SGM Hospital and thereafter, she has received treatment from Saroj Hospital, Delhi and Primus Hospital, Chanakya Puri, Delhi. Perusal of the record further reveals that she remains admitted at Saroj Hospital from 06.10.2013 to 11.10.2013 and at Primus Hospital, from 01.05.2014 to 08.05.2014. Perusal of the medical treatment record as well as medical bills of the petitioner, further reveals that the petitioner remains under continuous treatment up to 07.05.2018, as evident from her last medical bill dated 07.05.2018.
34. Besides this, the petitioner has examined Dr. Adarsh Kishore Singh, S.R. Orthopedic, Dr. BSA Hospital, Delhi, as PW5, who proved on record disability certificate of the petitioner, bearing No. 1590, dated 08.06.2019, as Ex.PW2/D, as per which, the petitioner has sustained 16% permanent physical disability, in relation to her right lower limb, with diagnosis of post operative stiffness of right hip, due to the injuries, sustained by her in the case accident. Accordingly, in view of the nature of injuries, sustained by the petitioner, as well as after considering the period of her hospitalization, coupled with 16% physical permanent disability, in relation to her right lower limb, the period of treatment cum recuperation, in case of the petitioner, is Page 27 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 28 of48 ascertained to be about 54 months (4½ years). Consequently, this Tribunal is of the opinion, that during her treatment cum recuperation period, the petitioner must have incurred expenses, in procuring special diet, for her speedy recovery, as well as in travelling from her residence to hospital and vice versa. Accordingly, a lump sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, is granted under this head to the petitioner, which includes Rs. 50,000/- each, towards special diet and conveyance respectively.
ATTENDANT CHARGES
35. The petitioner has sought compensation, on account of expenditure, incurred by her, towards attendant charges. But, the petitioner failed to place on record, any receipt, as to any payment, being made by her to any agency, from which, she had hired any attendant or any document, to show credit of any amount, to any attendant or agency. In her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/1, the petitioner deposed that as she was unable to carry out any work, after the accident, she has to engage a full time maid/attendant and paid a sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month, towards attendant charges. But, during the course of her cross-examination, she deposed that she does not have any details of attendants or documents, to show that she engaged any attendant or that she incurred any amount on attendant.
Page 28 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 29 of48
36. Moreso, PW2 also failed to examine even any maid/attendant, in support of her claim. However, taking into consideration the fact, that the petitioner has duly proved, that as a result of the accident, she has sustained grievous injuries, with 16% permanent disability, in relation to her right lower limb and as her treatment cum recuperation period has already been assessed to be about 54 months, therefore, this Tribunal is of the opinion, that the petitioner must have felt compelled to avail services of a medical attendant or a family member as an attendant for self care activities, such as, bathing, dressing up, using the rest room, combing his hairs, eating etc., during her treatment cum recuperation period of 54 months. Accordingly, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to award a lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/-, as compensation to the petitioner, under this head towards attendant charges.
COMPENSATION DUE TO PERMANENT DISABILITY/ LOSS OF FUTURE EARNING CAPACITY DUE TO DISABILITY
37. The petitioner has claimed compensation, on account of loss of income, due to the permanent disability sustained by the petitioner, in the case accident.
38. Perusal of the court record reveals that as per disability certificate, bearing No. 1590, dated 08.06.2019, as Ex.PW2/D, the petitioner has sustained 16% permanent Page 29 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 30 of48 physical disability, in relation to right lower limb, with diagnosis of post operative stiffness of right hip, due to the injuries, sustained by her in the case accident.
39. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its order passed in case of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors vs Jaibir Singh & Ors, FAO 842/2003, date of order 09.03.2018 has inter alia held that same percentage of permanent disability may have different impact upon earning capacity of different individuals, based upon the nature of their work. Relevant extract of observations made in para no.6.4 and 6.5 of the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the above named case is reproduced hereinbelow:
"6.4 The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, education and other factors. 6.5. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps:
(i) 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 disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life).
(ii) The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age.
(iii) The third step is to find out whether :
a) The claimant is totally disabled, earning any kind of livelihood, or
b) 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
c) Whether he was prevented all restricted from Page 30 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 31 of48 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."
40. In the light of above cited observations made by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in the decided case of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors vs Jaibir Singh & Ors (supra), it can be safely concluded that same percentage of permanent disability can have different impact on functional capacity and earning potential of an individual depending upon the nature of her job. Therefore, the functional disability has to be ascertained, taking into consideration its impact on the work of the claimant.
41. In the present matter, the petitioner/PW2 deposed that she was a housewife, at the time of accident. She further deposed that due to the accident, her life is affected badly, as she was confined to bed for a long time..
42. The petitioner has examined PW5, who during the course of his evidence before this Tribunal, deposed that the petitioner has sustained 16% permanent disability, in relation to her right lower limb, with diagnosis of post operative stiffness of right hip. He further deposed that the patient would be unable to squat and sit cross legged. Therefore, considering the petitioner as a housewife/ homemaker, this Tribunal deems it appropriate, to assess the functional disability of the petitioner and the effect of Page 31 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 32 of48 permanent disability, on her actual earning capacity as 8%.
43. The petitioner Geeta Trehan has not proved on record, either her educational qualification or her income. But, even if she is considered as a homemaker then also, in case titled Kirti & Anr. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2021) 2 SCC 166, 3-Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court, while discussing and highlighting the services rendered by housewife/homemaker and assessment of her notional income as per minimum wages prescribed for the State observed as under:
xxxxx " Grant of compensation, on a pecuniary basis, with respect to a homemaker, is a settled proposition of law. Taking into account the gendered nature of housework, with an overwhelming percentage of women being engaged in the same as compared to men, the fixing of notional income of a homemaker attains special significance. It becomes a recognition of the work, labour and sacrifices of homemakers and a reflection of changing attitudes. It is also in furtherance of our nation's international law obligations and our constitutional vision of social equality and ensuring dignity to all. Various methods can be employed by the Court to fix the notional income of a homemaker, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court should ensure while choosing the method, and fixing the notional income, that the same is just in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, neither assessing the compensation too conservatively, nor too liberally. The granting of future prospects,on the notional income calculated in such cases, is a component of just Page 32 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 33 of48 compensation"
xxxxx
44. In the matter titled as Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited Vs. Manmeet Singh & Ors.", reported at 2012 ACJ 721 (Delhi), it has been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that the services rendered by a housewife can not be counted; cooking, washing, ironing clothes and stitching clothes (in some cases) for the husband and children, teaching and guiding children, working as a nurse whenever the husband and child/children are sick, are some of the major activities of a housewife. She has no fixed hours of work; she is always in attendance to take care of each and every need of the whole family at the cost of her personal comfort and health. The services rendered by a housewife may differ from case to case considering her qualification, financial strata and social status of the family to which she belongs.
45. In the present matter, the petitioner has failed to prove on record her educational qualification and she admitted that she is a housewife, therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered view, that the petitioner, at best is entitled for minimum wages, of an unskilled person.
46. As per Aadhar card of the petitioner, at the time of accident, the petitioner was residing at G-29/105, Sector-3, Rohini, North West, Delhi -110085. Accordingly, the petitioner is Page 33 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 34 of48 entitled to minimum wages, payable to an unskilled person, in the area of NCT of Delhi, as on the date of occurrence of the case accident. The minimum wages of an unskilled person, in the area of NCT of Delhi was Rs.8,086/- per month, as on the date of accident. Accordingly, it would be reasonable and just to consider the income of the petitioner as Rs.8,086/- per month, on the date of occurrence of the case accident i.e. on 05.10.2013.
ADDITION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS.
47. In respect of entitlement of the petitioner to addition of future prospects in her monthly income, reference should be made to the latest Constitutional Bench Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision 31.10.2017, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court interalia held as under:-.
61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-
(i).........................................................................................
(ii) .....................................................................................
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30% , if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income Page 34 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 35 of48 should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
(v) For the determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced herein before.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and future expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/-
respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. "
(.... Emphasis Supplied)
48. Reference is also made to the case of Sanjay Oberoi vs Manoj Bageriya, MAC APPEAL 829/2011 decided on 03.11.2017 & Prem Chand vs Shamim Husain & Ors, MAC.APP. 1003/2017 decided on October 11,2018 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
49. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sanjay Oberoi (Supra), after referring to the judgment of the Constitution bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision 31.10.2017 granted element of future prospects of increase Page 35 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 36 of48 in the income, in a case where the income of the petitioner was notionally assessed on the basis of minimum wages with functional disability @ 10%.
50. As per Aadhar Card of the petitioner, her date of birth is 29.06.1962 and the accident in question has occurred on 05.10.2013, therefore the age of the injured at the time of accident was 51 years, 03 months and 06 days. In view of paragraph no. 61 (iv) of above said judgment in Pranay Sethi (Supra), the petitioner would be entitled to an addition of 10% of the established income, as she was between the age of 50 years to 60 years at the time of her accident. The monthly income of the petitioner is thus calculated as Rs. 8,086/- + 10% of 8,086/-, which comes to Rs.8,086/-+ 808.6/- = Rs.8,894.6/-.
51. The age of the petitioner at the time of accident was about 51 years 03 months and 06 days. In the said circumstances, the relevant multiplier has to be calculated as per the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarla Verma vs Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298. As per the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma case by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, multiplier of 11 is to be applied for computing compensation payable to a victim of Road Traffic Accident aged between 51 years to 55 years. The compensation is accordingly assessed towards loss of earning capacity at Rs.93,926.97/- [(Rs.8,894.6/- per month x 12 months x 11 (age multiplier) x 8/100 (functional disability)].
Page 36 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 37 of48 LOSS OF AMENITIES OF LIFE.
52. In the present matter, the petitioner has duly proved that as a result of the accident, she has sustained grievous injuries, with 16% permanent disability, in relation to her right lower limb and as her treatment cum recuperation period has already been assessed to be about 54 months accordingly, it can be safely concluded that the petitioner must have suffered loss of enjoyment of life and its amenities, due to permanent disability sustained by her, which is 16%, on account of having met with the case accident and therefore, this Tribunal deems it appropriate, to grant a total sum of Rs.50,000/-, as compensation to the petitioner, under the said head of loss of amenities of life.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
53. The petitioner has claimed compensation on account of trauma suffered by her, due to the injuries sustained by her in the case accident. In the present matter, the petitioner has duly proved that as a result of the accident, she has sustained grievous injuries, with 16% permanent disability, in relation to her right lower limb and as her treatment cum recuperation period has already been assessed to be about 54 months accordingly, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner must have suffered acute pain and mental agony, during her treatment and on account permanent disability suffered by him. Accordingly, a lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000/-, is granted in favour of the petitioner under the said head.
Page 37 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 38 of48 LOSS OF INCOME
54. Petitioner in her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/1, has deposed that prior to the accident, she was working as a housewife. Further, in paragraph No. 46, her monthly income has already been assessed as Rs. 8,086/- and since the treatment-cum-recuperation period of the petitioner has already been determined to be 54 months, accordingly, a sum of Rs. 4,36,644/- (Rs.8,086/- x 54 months), is awarded in favour of the petitioner, as compensation under the head of loss of income.
55. Accordingly, the over all compensation, which is to be awarded to the petitioner comes to Rs. 12,83,991/-, which is tabulated as below Sl. No Compensation Award amount
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/-
2 Special diet & Conveyance Rs. 1,00,000/-
3. Attendant Charges Rs. 50,000/-
4. Medical Expenses Rs. 3,53,420/-
5. Loss of income Rs. 4,36,644/-
6. Loss of amenities of life Rs. 50,000/-
7. Loss of future earning capacity Rs. 93,926.97/-
Total Rs. 11,33,990.97/-
Rounded off to Rs. 11,33,991/-
(Rupees Eleven Lacs Thirty Three Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety One only)
56. In respect of entitlement of the petitioner to interest on the awarded amount, it is noteworthy that the Hon'ble Apex Page 38 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 39 of48 Court had in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC) of the back the victims of Uphaar Tragedy be awarded compensation with interest @ 9% per annum. Therefore, in the interest of justice, in the present case also this court is of the opinion that the claimant/petitioner is entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition i.e. w.e.f 13.01.2014 till realization of the compensation amount.
57. The amount of interim award, if any, shall however be deducted from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the petitioner.
LIABILITY
58. In the present matter, the question which arises for determination, is as to which of the respondents, is liable to pay the compensation amount. Respondent no. 1/insurance company did not adduce any evidence, as it had filed the legal offer. It is nowhere the case of the insurance company, that any terms or conditions of the insurance policy was breached/violated by the insured. Keeping in view the existence of valid insurance policy, respondent no. 1/insurance company becomes liable, to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner, as insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured.
Page 39 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 40 of48
59. Accordingly, in the case in hand, in terms of order dated 16.05.2017 of Hon'ble High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors., United India Insurance co./R1 is directed to deposit the awarded amount of Rs. 11,33,991/- within 30 days from today within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal at State Bank of India, Rohini Courts Branch, Delhi along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition, till notice of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R1 to the petitioner and her advocate and to show or deposit the receipt of the acknowledgment with the Nazir as per rules. R1 is further directed to deposit the awarded amount in the above said bank by means of cheque drawn in the name of above said bank along with the name of the claimant mentioned therein. The said bank is further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimant approaches the bank for disbursement, so that the awarded amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheque.
APPORTIONMENT
60. Statement of petitioner in terms of clause 29 of MCTAP was recorded on 19.09.2024 regarding his savings bank A/c with endorsement of MACT claims SB A/c, no loan, cheque book & ATM/debit card. I have heard the petitioner and learned counsel for the petitioner/claimant regarding the financial needs of the injured/petitioner and in view of Page 40 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 41 of48 the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment passed in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others, 1994 (2) SC, 1631, for appropriate investments to safeguard the amount from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to their ignorance, illiteracy and being susceptible to exploitation, following arrangements are hereby ordered:-
61. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, and clause 32 of MCTAP, regarding protection of the award amount, it is hereby directed that on realization, an amount of Rs. 4,33,991/- be released to her in her MACT Claims SB A/c no. 254910100051737, Andhra Bank, Rohini, Sector-3 Branch, Delhi, as per rules, that is, the branch near her place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under clause 29 MCTAP) and remaining amount be kept in the form of FDRs of equal amount for a period of one month to 35 months respectively with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and pre-mature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
62. The aforesaid award amount shall be disbursed to the claimant through the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in case of Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, FAO 842/2003. However, till the time MACAD Scheme becomes fully operational and to Page 41 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 42 of48 ensure that the petitioner is not put to any undue inconvenience, the fixed deposits shall be subject to following conditions:-
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the victim, that is, the saving bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be individual savings account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant/(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amount of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence i.e. above said a/c.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the court.
(f) The concerned Bank shall not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of Page 42 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 43 of48 the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect, that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the pass book(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
RELIEF
63. As discussed above, United India Insurance Company Limited/R1 is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs.11,33,991/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition, that is, 13.01.2014 till realization within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal at SBI, Rohini Court Branch, Delhi within 30 days from today under intimation of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R1 to the petitioner and her advocate failing which the R1 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the period of delay beyond 30 days.
64. R1 is also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of Page 43 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 44 of48 deposit of the amount in the above said bank to the claimants and complete details in respect of calculations of interest etc. in the court within 30 days from today.
65. A copy of this judgment/award be sent to respondent no. 1 for compliance within the granted time.
66. Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the granted time.
67. In terms of directions contained in the order dated 07.12.2018 and subsequent order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in the case of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors vs Jaibir Singh & Ors., FAO 842/2003, the copy of the award be also sent by the Ahlmad of the court to Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India (as per the list of nodal officers of 21 banks of Indian Bank's Association as circulated to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide above mentioned order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court) who is the Nodal Officer with contact details (022-22741336/9414048606) {other details-Personal Banking Business Unit (LIMA) 13th Floor, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021} through email ([email protected]) through the computer branch of Rohini Courts, Delhi. Ahlmad of the court is directed to take immediate steps in that regard.
Page 44 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 45 of48
68. A copy of this award be forwarded to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and DLSA in terms of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. vide order dated 12.12.2014.
69. In view of the directions contained in order dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, the statement of petitioner was also recorded on 19.09.2024. The record would show that the relevant documents including copy of aadhar card, PAN card, copy of bank pass book and form 15G of the petitioner have already been supplied to the Ld. counsel for insurance co. on 19.09.2024 itself.
70. Form IVB which has been duly filled in has also been attached herewith. File be consigned to record room as per rules after compliance of necessary legal formalities. Copy of order be given to parties for necessary compliance as per Digitally signed rules. SHAMA by SHAMA GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.10.09 14:37:28 +0530 Announced in open court (SHAMA GUPTA) on 08th October, 2025 P.O. MACT N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi Page 45 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 46 of48 FORM - IV B SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1.Date of accident: 05.10.2013
2. Name of injured: Geeta Trehan
3. Age of the injured: About 51 years, 03 months and 06 days at the time of accident.
4. Occupation of the injured: Housewife
5. Income of the injured: Rs. 8,086/- per month.
6. Nature of injury: Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured: About 54 months.
8. Period of hospitalization: As per record.
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details: Yes.
16% Permanent Physical Disability
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs.3,53,420/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.50,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs.50,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs.50,000/-
(v) Loss of earning capacity Rs.93,926.97/-
Page 46 of48
Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 47 of48
(vi) Loss of income Rs.4,36,644/-
(vii) Any other loss which may require N/A
any special treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(I) Compensation for mental and N/A
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.50,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration N/A
(v) Loss of marriage prospects N/A
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, N/A
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and 16% Permanent Physical nature of disability as permanent or Disability temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N/A expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning 8% capacity in relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (Income X Rs.93,926.97/-[(Rs. 8,894.6/-
% Earning capacity X Multiplier) per month x12 months x Page 47 of48 Geeta Trehan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Page 48 of48 11(age multiplier) x 8/100 (functional disability)].
(v) Future Medical Expenses N/A 14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.11,33,991/- 15. INTEREST AWARDED 7.50%
16. Interest amount up to the date of Rs.9,98,384.57 award
17. Total amount including interest Rs.21,32,375.57 (rounded off to Rs. 21,32,376/-)
18. Award amount released Rs. 4,33,991/-
19. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.16,98,385/-
20. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in terms of amount to the claimant (s) clause 29 of MCTAP (Clause29)
21. Next date for compliance of the 07.11.2025 award. (Clause 31) Digitally signed SHAMA by SHAMA GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.10.09 14:37:19 +0530 Announced in open court (SHAMA GUPTA) on 8th October, 2025 P.O. MACT N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi Page 48 of48