Delhi District Court
16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 1 Of 22 on 12 September, 2018
16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 1 of 22
IN THE COURT OF SH. AMIT BANSAL : JUDGE : MOTOR ACCIDENTS
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL :NORTH WEST DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
New No. 5106916
MACT PETITION No. : 16316
UNIQUE ID No. : DLNW010013182016
Sh. Bijender S/o Late Sh. Dharam Singh
R/o F306, Agar Nagar Prem NagarIII,
Kirari Suleman Nagar, Delhi86
Permanent R/o Radhe Krishan Electronics
Mata Puli Road, Samalkha, Distt. Panipat, Haryana.
Versus
1. Sh. Ajmer Singh S/o Sh. Surat Singh
R/o Bhirtana, P.S. Puli Khera,
Tehsil Safidon, Distt. Jind, Haryana.
.......( Driver /R1)
2. Sh. Suresh S/o Sh. Phool Singh
R/o Ward No. 9, Shiv Colony, Safidon,
Distt. Jind, Haryana.
.......( Owner /R2)
3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
3031A, Jeevan Vikas Building,
4th Floor, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi
..... (Insurance co/R3)
Other details
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 06.01.2016
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 31.08.2018
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.09.2018
FORM - V
1. COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE
AWARD AS PER FORMAT REFERRED IN CLAUSE 4.3 OF THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN FAO 842/2003
RAJESH TYAGI Vs. JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. & SOBAT SINGH VS
RAMESH CHANDRA GUPTA & ANR., MAC.APP 422/2009 VIDE
ORDER DATED 15.12.2017
16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 1 of 22
16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 2 of 22
1. Date of the accident 01.03.2014
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the It is outstation
investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal accident i.e.
(Clause 2) Sonepat .
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the It is outstation
investigating officer to the insurance company. accident i.e. Sonepat
(Clause 2)
4. Date of filing of Report under section 173 Not mentioned in the
Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate DAR
(Clause 10)
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information It is outstation
Report (DAR) by the investigating Officer before accident i.e. Sonepat
Claims Tribunal (Clause 10)
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance It is outstation
Company (Clause 11) accident i.e. Sonepat
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). It is outstation
(Clause 11) accident i.e. Sonepat
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? It is outstation
(Clause 16) accident i.e. Sonepat
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed It is outstation
later on? accident i.e. Sonepat
10. Whether the police has verified the documents It is outstation
filed with DAR? (Clause 4) accident i.e. Sonepat
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on It is outstation
the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, accident i.e. Sonepat
whether any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer It is outstation
by the insurance Company. (Clause20) accident i.e. Sonepat
13. Name, address and contact number of the Sh. V.K. Gupta,
Designated Officer of the Insurance Company. Advocate
(Clause 20)
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Insurance It is outstation
Company submitted his report within 30 days of accident i.e. Sonepat
the DAR? (Clause 20)
15. Whether the insurance company admitted the It is outstation
liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of accident i.e. Sonepat
the insurance company fairly computed the
compensation in accordance with law. (Clause
23)
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on It is outstation
16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 2 of 22
16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 3 of 22
the part of the Designated Officer of the accident i.e. Sonepat
Insurance Company? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer It is outstation
of the Insurance Company .(Clause 24) accident i.e. Sonepat
18. Date of the Award 12.09.2018
19. Whether the award was passed with the consent No
of the parties? (Clause 22)
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes
saving bank account(s) near their place of
residence? (Clause 18)
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were 15.03.2018
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). (Clause 18)
22. Date on which the claimant (s) produced the 31.05.2018
passbook of their saving bank account near the
place of their residence along with the
endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
(Clause 18)
23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned above
Claimant(s) (Clause 27)
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Petitioner Bijender
claimant(s) and the address of the bank with savings bank a/c no.
IFSC Code (Clause 27) 066100101167838
with PNB Bank,
Gannaur Branch,
Sonepat, Haryana
IFSC : PUNB0066100
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank account(s) Yes
is near his place of residence? (Clause 27)
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the Yes
time of passing of the award. (Clause 27)
27. Account number/CIF No, MICR number, IFSC 86143654123,
Code, name and branch of the bank of the 110002427,
Claims Tribunal in which the award amount is to SBIN0010323, SBI,
be deposited/transferred. (in terms of order Rohini Courts, Delhi
dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in
FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh.
16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 3 of 22
16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 4 of 22
JUDGMENT
1. Present claim petition has been preferred under Section 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.V. Act') claiming compensation for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/ (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only) in respect of accidental injuries of Sh. Bijender S/o Late Dharam Singh in a motor vehicular accident.
2. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in the petition are that on 01.03.2014 at about 6:30 am, the petitioner was going to fetch water from a water tank on foot. When he reached at G.T. Road, Larsholi, Murthal, Sonepat, Haryana, then a motorcycle bearing registration no. HR33D0438 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle ) which was being driven by its driver/R1 at a very high speed, in rash and negligent manner, came from back side and hit the petitioner/injured. Due to said impact, the petitioner fell down on road and sustained grievous injuries i.e. fracture D12 with Paraplegia with both bone. Petitioner was admitted in General hospital, Sonepat where his MLC was prepared by the doctor. It has been stated that due to serious condition, petitioner was referred to Pt. B.D. Sharma, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Science Rohtak where he remained hospitalized from 01.03.2014 to 28.03.2014. The FIR no. 48/14 PS Murthal, Sonepat, Haryana was registered u/s 279/337 IPC.
It has been stated in the petition that petitioner was aged about 36 years at the time of accident, was working as Auto Mechanic at Sonu Auto Repair Centre, main Mubarakpur road, Delhi and besides this also was running a tyre puncturing repairing shop in front of Govt School village Larsholi, Panipat, Haryana and was earning Rs. 15,000/ to Rs. 20,000/ per month.
It has been stated that respondent no. 1, 2 and 3 being driver, owner and insurance co. respectively of the offending vehicle are liable to compensate him.
16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 4 of 22 16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 5 of 223. Sh. Ajmer Singh/R1/driver and Sh. Suresh Kumar/R2 owner of the offending vehicle have not filed their written statement and were ultimately proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.03.18.
4. United India Insurance co/R3 has filed its written statement wherein it is stated that offending vehicle was insured with it vide policy no. 1120813113P145065275 w.e.f 03.12.2013 to 02.12.2014 i.e. covering the date of accident dated 01.03.2014.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 15.03.2018 :
1. Whether on 01.03.2014 at about 6:30 am, at G.T. Road, Ladsoli, Murthal, District Sonepat, Haryana, one motorcycle bearing registration no. HR33D0438, which was being driven rashly and negligently by Ajmer Singh, hit Bijender and caused injuries to him? OPP
2. Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
The petitioner/injured in support of his case has examined total two witness i.e. himself as PW1 and Dr. Mohit Sharma, S.R. Orthopedics from Dr. BSA hospital.
The record would show that respondents have not examined any witness in support of their case.
6. I have heard arguments addressed on behalf of ld counsel for petitioner and ld counsel for insurance co/R3 and have carefully perused the record. Now, I proceed to discuss the issues in the succeeding paragraphs.
7. Issue wise findings are as under: Issue No.1 The onus of proving this issue beyond preponderance of probabilities is on the petitioner.
The petitioner/injured has examined himself as PW1. He has 16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 5 of 22 16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 6 of 22 proved his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. He has proved his discharge summary as Ex. PW1/1, original disability certificate as Ex. PW1/2, original OPD cards as Ex. PW1/3 (colly), original medical bills as Ex. PW1/4 (colly) and election identity card as Ex. PW1/5. As per Ex. PW1/5, the address of petitioner was of Delhi i.e. 306, E Block, Agar Nagar, Prem NagarIII, Kirari Suleman Nagar, Delhi. He has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A that on 01.03.2014 at about 6:30 am, he was going to fetch water from a water tank on foot. He deposed that when he reached at G.T. Road, Larsholi, Murthal, Sonepat, Haryana, then a motorcycle bearing registration no. HR33D0438 (offending vehicle) which was being driven by its driver/R1 at a very high speed, in rash and negligent manner, came from back side and hit him. He deposed that due to said impact, he fell down on road and sustained grievous injuries i.e. fracture D12 with paraplegia with both bone. He deposed that he was admitted in General hospital, Sonipat where his MLC was prepared by the doctor and he was referred to PGIMS Rohtak where he remained hospitalised from 01.03.2014 to 28.03.2014.
PW1 is the injured himself who was not cross examined by R1 and R2 despite opportunity and his cross examination by them was nil, opportunity given. In the said circumstances, they shall be deemed to admit the above said testimony of PW1 to the effect that the case accident was caused on the above said date, time and place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1 whereby the petitioner received grievous injuries.
PW1 was only cross examined by ld counsel for R3/insurance co. wherein PW1 inter alia deposed that the offending motorcycle was of Bajaj Company and its model was Platina and that the driver of the offending motorcycle was about 40 years of age. He deposed that he himself had noticed the registration number of the offending motorcycle as HR33D0438. He deposed that he did not 16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 6 of 22 16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 7 of 22 note down in writing the registration number of the said motorcycle but he had told the number to his brother Krishan before he had become unconscious after about 1 hour of the accident. He deposed that the offending motorcycle was coming from the side of Panipat towards Delhi side. He deposed that his statement was recorded by the police in PGI Rohtak after about 1015 days of the accident and that he gained his consciousness after about 23 days of the accident. He deposed that the front portion of the motorcycle had struck against him from behind and that after the accident the motorcycle had fallen down but immediately thereafter the persons on the motorcycle fled away with the motorcycle. He volunteered that his brother Krishan had lodged the FIR. He deposed that his brother Krishan was accompanying him at the time of accident and that he did not know as to when his brother Krishan lodged the FIR. He denied the suggestions that he as well as his brother did not notice the number of the vehicle or that the motorcycle bearing registration no. HR33D0438 was falsely implicated in the case accident. He deposed that at the time of accident, he was residing in Delhi. The remaining cross examination is only to the point of earning and expenditure of the petitioner which is not germane to the issue in hand.
Nothing has appeared in the said cross examination of PW1 by ld counsel for R3 to discredit his above said testimony regarding the manner in which the case accident was caused with the offending vehicle due to rash and negligent driving of R1. The copy of FIR and charge sheet u/s 279/337/338 IPC can be relied upon to show that the case accident was caused on the above said date, time and place due to rash and negligent driving of R1.
There is thus nothing on record to suggest even remotely that R1 did not cause the said accident in the manner as deposed on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly, in view of the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, on the basis of material as placed on record 16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 7 of 22 16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 8 of 22 and in view of above discussion, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the petitioner and hence, Issue No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents to the effect that the case accident was caused by R1 while driving the above said offending vehicle negligently and that the petitioner suffered injuries in the said accident in question due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1.
Issue no. 1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
8. Issue no. 2.
In view of findings on issue no.1, the petitioner is entitled to compensation.
Petitioner has filed his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. He deposed that he sustained grievous injuries i.e. fracture D12 with paraplegia with both bone and other multiple injuries. He deposed that after the accident he was admitted in General hospital, Sonepat, Haryana where her MLC was prepared and thereafter he was referred to Pt. B.D. Sharma, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Science, Rohtak where he remained admitted w.e.f 01.03.2014 to 28.03.2014.
Petitioner has examined Dr. Mohit Sharma, S.R. Orthopedics, Dr. BSA hospital as PW2 who has proved the permanent disability certificate of petitioner as Ex. PW2/A. He deposed that the patient/petitioner suffered total percentage physical impairment (PPI) of 90% in relation to both lower limb and spine with diagnosis of post traumatic paraplegia.
He was cross examined only on behalf of insurance co/R3 wherein he inter alia deposed that he was not having any personal knowledge of the case or that he could not tell the disability qua the whole body as there were no such guidelines or that the disability assessed by the board had no relation with the injuries as mentioned in the MLC of the patient.
Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to following compensation: 16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 8 of 22 16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 9 of 22 A Medical Expenses.
The petitioner has proved on record his medical bills as Ex. PW1/4 (colly). The same come to Rs.35,225/, hence, Rs. 35,225/ is granted under this head.
B. Special Diet and conveyance.
PW1/petitioner deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A that he spent Rs. 1,00,000/ on special diet and Rs. 50,000/ on conveyance.
In his cross examination, PW1 inter alia denied the suggestion that he did not incur such amount on above said heads.
Petitioner has deposed that he remained hospitalized at PGIMS Rohtak from 01.03.2014 to 28.03.2014 and the record would show that he suffered fracture of D12 vertebra with paraplegia of both bones and also suffered 90% permanent physical impairment (PPI) in relation to both lower limbs and spine. The petitioner has, however, failed to prove any document to prove his exact expenditure on the said head, but keeping in view the above said facts, injuries including paraplegia of both bones of lower limbs and probable treatment period of about 21 months, a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ is granted under the said head.
C. Attendant Charges PW1/petitioner deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A that he spent Rs. 5,00,000/ on attendant charges. He deposed that before the accident his wife was also working in a private job and was earning Rs. 13,000/ per month but after the accident she had to leave her job permanently since he was having 90% disability and required a full time attendant.
In his cross examination, PW1 inter alia denied the suggestion that he did not incur the said amount on the said head. He admitted that he did not engage any attendant against payment. He also deposed that he did not have any documentary proof to show that his wife was working before the accident or that she had to leave her job due to his accident. He denied the 16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 9 of 22 16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 10 of 22 suggestion that his wife was not working or that she was not earning any amount.
Petitioner has deposed that he remained hospitalized at PGIMS Rohtak from 01.03.2014 to 28.03.2014 and the record would show that he suffered fracture of D12 vertebra with paraplegia of both bones and also suffered 90% permanent physical impairment (PPI) in relation to both lower limbs and spine.
The petitioner has, however, failed to prove any document to prove his exact expenditure on the said head or that his wife was working or that she had to leave her job to become an attendant for him, but keeping in view the above said facts, injuries including paraplegia of both bones of lower limbs and probable treatment period of about 21 months, it is evident that he would be requiring a full time attendant to attend to his requirements. In facts, a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,50,000/ is granted under the said head. D. Loss of future earning capacity due to disability The petitioner suffered permanent disability and his disability certificate in that regard issued from Dr. BSA hospital has been proved as Ex. PW1/2. As per Ex. PW1/2, the patient was a case of total permanent physical impairment (PPI) of 90% in relation to both lower limbs and spine and was diagnosed with paraplegia.
Petitioner has also placed on record photographs of his injured body portion showing spinal injuries.
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the recent order in case of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors vs Jaibir Singh & Ors, FAO 842/2003, date of order 09.03.2018 has inter alia held as follows:
"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 16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 10 of 22 16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 11 of 22 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 or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood."
The petitioner suffered permanent disability to the tune of 90% in relation to both lower limbs and spine and is a case of paraplegia i.e. he suffered paralysis of legs and lower body due to spinal injuries. Petitioner has deposed and stated that he was working as an auto mechanic and also used to mend tyre punctures. As per Ex. PW1/5, his election ID card, he was aged about 42 years as on 01.01.2015 i.e. he was aged about 41 years as on the date of accident (01.03.2014). The record would show that with the above said disability including paraplegia of both lower limbs and spine to the extent of 90%, the petitioner would not be able to effectively carry on the work which he was earlier doing and would also be totally restricted from discharging not only his previous work but would also be totally prevented from carry on any other work to earn his livelihood. PW1 has further deposed that as he has sustained 90% permanent disability (Spinal) due to his accident which should be considered as 100% disability since with such disability it would not be possible to move and work for any consideration.
16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 11 of 22 16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 12 of 22Keeping in view the aforesaid evidence on record, discussion and as with paraplegia of both the lower limbs and disability in relation to both lower limbs and spine, he would not able to carry on any work, hence, the functional disability of the petitioner in relation to his whole body and the effect of permanent disability on his actual earning capacity is taken as 100%.
The petitioner/PW1 has deposed that he was working as an auto mechanic and used to mend tyre punctures with Sonu Auto Repairs Centres, Prem NagarIII, Kirari, Delhi and used to earn Rs. 15,000/ to Rs. 20,000/ per month. The petitioner has however, failed to prove his monthly income and has not examined any witness or document of Sonu Auto Repair Centre in that regard. Further, petitioner has not placed or proved on record any document regarding his educational qualifications.
In view of above said discussion, it would be appropriate to assess the income of the deceased on the basis of minimum wages of an unskilled worker as fixed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi under the Minimum Wages Act. The minimum wages of an unskilled worker at the relevant time on the date of accident was Rs. 8086/ p.m. Accordingly, it would be reasonable and just to consider the income of petitioner as Rs. 8086/ per month on the date of accident in question.
E. Addition of Future Prospects.
In this regard, 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) .....................................................................................
16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 12 of 22 16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 13 of 22(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 selfemployed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income 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 hereinbefore.
(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. "
16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 13 of 22 16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 14 of 22(.... Emphasis Supplied) Refence is also made to the case of Sanjay Oberoi vs Manoj Bageriya, MAC APPEAL 829/2011 decided on 03.11.2017 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
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 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%.
In the case in hand, the petitioner was self employed and thus while determining his income for computing compensation, future prospects have to be added to fall within the ambit and sweep of just compensation under Section 168 of M.V. Act.
The age of the petitioner, as discussed above, in the present case was about 41 years and he was self employed. In view of paragraph no. 61 (iv) of above said judgment in Pranay Sethi (Supra), the petitioner would be entitled to an addition of 25% of the established income as he was between the age group of 40 to 50 years at the time of his accident.
The monthly income of petitioner is thus calculated as 8086/ +25% of 8086/ which comes to Rs. 8086/+ Rs. 2021/ (after rounding of)= Rs. 10,107/.
The age of petitioner at the time of accident was about 41 years and the relevant multiplier of "14" is to be adopted as per judgment in case of Sarla Verma vs Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 which has been upheld in paragraph no. 61(vi) in case 16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 14 of 22 16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 15 of 22 of Pranay Sethi (Supra). Accordingly, the relevant multiplier would be "14" as per judgment in case of Sarla Verma (Supra) which has been upheld in paragraph no. 61 (vi) in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). The compensation is accordingly assessed towards loss of earning capacity at Rs.16,97,976/ [(Rs. 10,107/per month x12 months x 14 (age multiplier) x 100/100(functional disability)]. F. Loss of Amenities of Life.
Petitioner has deposed that he remained hospitalized at PGIMS Rohtak from 01.03.2014 to 28.03.2014 and the record would show that he suffered fracture of D12 vertebra with paraplegia of both bones and also suffered 90% permanent physical impairment (PPI) in relation to both lower limbs and spine. Keeping in view the above said facts, injuries including paraplegia of both bones of lower limbs and probable treatment period of about 21 months, a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ is granted under the said head.
G. Pain and Suffering Petitioner has deposed that he remained hospitalized at PGIMS Rohtak from 01.03.2014 to 28.03.2014 and the record would show that he suffered fracture of D12 vertebra with paraplegia of both bones and also suffered 90% permanent physical impairment (PPI) in relation to both lower limbs and spine. Keeping in view the above said facts, injuries including paraplegia of both bones of lower limbs and probable treatment period of about 21 months, a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ is granted under the said head.
H. Loss of income during treatment period.
As discussed above, the monthly income of petitioner is taken as Rs. 8086/ as the minimum wages of unskilled worker as fixed by the Govt of NCT of Delhi. The serious nature of injuries, serious disability and the record would show that the probable period of treatment of petitioner is about 21 months. In the given circumstances, the tribunal is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled for a sum of 16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 15 of 22 16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 16 of 22 Rs.1,69,806/ (8086/ x 21 months) as loss of income during treatment period.
9. Accordingly, the over all compensation which is to be awarded to the petitioner thus comes to Rs. 23,53,007/ which is tabulated as below: Sl. No Compensation Award amount
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 1,00,000/ 2 Special diet & Conveyance Rs. 1,00,000/
3. Attendant Charges Rs 1,50,000/
4. Medical Expenses Rs. 35,225/
5. Loss of income Rs. 1,69,806/
6. Loss of Earning/disability Rs. 16,97,976/
7. Loss of amenities of life Rs. 1,00,000/ Total Rs. 23,53,007/ Rounded of to Rs. 23,53,000/ ( Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand only) The claimant/petitioner is also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. w.e.f 06.01.2016 till realisation of the compensation amount. The said interest @ 9% p.a. was awarded on the award amount by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC) .
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.
10. Liability The United India Insurance Co/R3 has not been able to show anything on record that R1, who was the driver of the offending vehicle was not having any valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle or that the permit of offending vehicle was not valid and as per settled law, since the offending vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company/R3, hence R3 16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 16 of 22 16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 17 of 22 is liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the petitioner as per law. 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/R3 is directed to deposit the awarded amount of Rs. 23,53,000/ within 30 days from today within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal i.e. State Bank of India, Rohini Courts Branch, Delhi alongwith interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till notice of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3 to the petitioner and his advocate and to show or deposit the receipt of the acknowledgement with the Nazir as per rules. R3 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 alongwith 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
11. Statement of petitioner in terms of clause 27 MCTAP was recorded. I have heard the petitioner and ld. counsel for the petitioner/claimant regarding financial needs of the injured/petitioner and in view of the judgment 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: Further, an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ be released to petitioner in cash in his saving bank a/c no. 066100101167838 with PNB Gannaur Branch, Haryana i.e. the branch near his place of residence as mentioned in his statement recorded under clause 27 MCTAP with necessary endorsement regarding no cheque book and debit card in terms of orders of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 15.12.2017 and 18.01.2018 16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 17 of 22 16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 18 of 22 and remaining amount be kept in 84 FDRs of equal amount for a period of one month to 84 months respectively with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
It shall be subject to the following further conditions and directions in terms of order dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Sobat Singh vs Ramesh Chandra Gupta and case of Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, MAC.APP . 422/2009 and FAO 842/2003 :
(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 i.e. 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 maturity amount of the FDR(s) shall be credited to the saving bank account of the claimant(s) in a nationalised bank near the place of his residence i.e. above said a/c.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature 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.
(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.
16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 18 of 22 16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 19 of 2212. Relief United India Insurance Co/R3 is directed to deposit the award amount of 23,53,000/ with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 06.01.2016 till realization within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal i.e. SBI , Rohini Court Branch, Delhi within 30 days from today under intimation of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3/insurance to the petitioner and his advocate failing which the United India Insurance Co/R3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the period of delay beyond 30 days.
United India Insurance Co/R3 is also directed to place on record the proof of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the amount in the above said bank to the claimant and complete details in respect of calculations of interest etc in the court within 30 days from today. A copy of this judgment/award be sent to R3 for compliance within the granted time. Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of non receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the granted time.
13. 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.
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 wherein he had stated that he was entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS and that he would submit form 15G to the insurance co. so that no TDS is deducted.
16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 19 of 22 16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 20 of 2214. Form IVB 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 rules .The insurance co./R3 is also directed to obtain the copy of PAN card of the petitioner from the record.
Digitally signed AMIT by AMIT BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2018.09.12
16:57:15 +0530
Announced in open court (AMIT BANSAL)
on 12th September 2018 PO MACT N/W
Rohini Courts, Delhi.
16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 20 of 22
16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 21 of 22
FORM - IV B
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1.Date of accident 01.03.2014
2. Name of injured Sh. Bijender
3. Age of the injured 41 years
4. Occupation of the injured: Self employed
5. Income of the injured. 10,107/ per month
6. Nature of injury: Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured. For about 21 months
8. Period of hospitalization: 10 days.
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details.
Yes. 100% permanent disability.
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 35,225/
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 50,000/
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 50,000/
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 1,50,000/
(v) Loss of earning capacity Rs. 16,97,976/
(vi) Loss of income Rs. 1,69,806/
(vii) Any other loss which may require any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. NonPecuniary Loss:
(I) Compensation for mental and physical
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 1,00,000/
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 1,00,000/
16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 21 of 22
16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 22 of 22
(iv) Disfiguration
(v) Loss of marriage prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience,
hardships, disappointment, frustration,
mental stress, dejectment and
unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and 90% permanent disability nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in 100% functional disability.
relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (Income X Rs. 16,97,976/ %Earning capacity X Multiplier) (Rs. 8086/x25%x x12x14x100%)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 23,53,000/
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9%
16. Interest amount up to the date of award Rs. 5,64,716/
17. Total amount including interest Rs. 29,17,716/
18. Award amount released Rs. 2,00,000/
19. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs. 27,17,716/
20. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in terms of amount to the claimant (s) (Clause29) clause 29 of MCTAP
21. Next date for compliance of the award. 22.10.2018 (Clause 31) Digitally signed by AMIT AMIT BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2018.09.12 16:57:29 +0530 (AMIT BANSAL) PO MACT N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi.
12.09.2018 16316 Bijender vs Ajmer Singh Page 22 of 22