Delhi District Court
Suresh Kumar S/O Sh. Sh. Mahavir Singh vs ) Sh. Satyaveer Singh S/O Sh. Khajan ... on 24 April, 2012
-1-
IN THE COURT OF SH. D.K. MALHOTRA, ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE CUM PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
(M - 85C/11)
Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Sh. Mahavir Singh
R/o Village Ram Nagar Gangoi PS Chandos,
Distt. Aligarh, UP,
Present Address:
H. No. V-31 Nihal Vihar Nangloi,
Delhi. -----------Injured/Petitioner
Versus
1) Sh. Satyaveer Singh S/o Sh. Khajan (Driver / owner)
House no.: 156 Village Sultanpur Dabas,
Delhi.
2) Reliance General Insurance Company,
Pitampura, Delhi. -------Respondents
Date of institution---28.11.2011
Date of decision------24.04.2012
JUDGMENT:-
The present DAR has been filed in respect of accident dated 21.09.2011 at 1.20 p.m. under Mangolpuri Flyover, Delhi. Brief facts of the accident narrated by the injured during his statement before the IO, are that he is aged about 20 years and used to work as helper in the vehicle i. e. Mahindra champion bearing No. DL-1LL-5983 being driven by its owner Sh. Vinod Kumar. Injured as well as owner/driver both after loading the goods from Nangloi were going towards Mangolpuri Industrial Area, Truck Market, Phase-II. Injured was sitting on the front side seat. At about 1.30pm when they took a turn after crossing the traffic light for going to Mangolpuri Industrial Area, Phase-I, then from the road coming towards Ring Road, Pitampura Police Lines, one Tata 407 bearing no.DL-1LK-1292 after jumping the red light in a rash and negligent manner and with a high speed, struck -2- against our vehicle i. e. Mahindra champion bearing No. DL-1LL-5983 from back side and as a result of which Mahindra champion bearing No. DL-1LL-5983 got overturned from the driver's side and injured received grievous injuries in his right hand. Injured alongwith the driver of Mahindra Champion had gone to the Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital. It is further stated by the injured that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the offending vehicle. A criminal case under section 279/338 IPC was registered against respondent no. 1 vide FIR No. 400/11 in police station Mangol Puri, Delhi.
Thereafter application u/s 151 CPC moved on behalf of the injured / petitioner for his examination for ascertaining his disability, was allowed by my Ld. Predecessor. Disability certificate issued by Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital was placed on record showing disability of injured to the extent of 41%.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 01.03.2012:
1) Whether Sh. Suresh Kumar suffered injuries due to road accident on 21.09.2011 at about 1.30pm within the jurisdiction of PS Mangolpuri, Delhi, due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. DL-1LK-1292 being driven by driver namely Satbir?
OPP
2) Whether the injured is entitled to compensation, if so, to what an extent and from which of the respondents? OPP.
3) Relief.
At this stage Insurance company/ respondent no.2 gave settlement offer of Rs. 3,12,000/- which is not acceptable to the Injured/petitioner. By making this offer respondent no.2 is accepting liability to the extent of Rs. 3,12,000/- or more as decided by the Tribunal. He is not having any statutory defence and is not disputing factum of accident having been caused by rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1, the driver of the offending vehicle. Same is the position in respect -3- of driver of the offending vehicle who is present today before this Tribunal. counsel for insurance company as well as respondent no.1 do not dispute the authenticity and validity of the disability certificate, which is marked as Ex.PX. They also do not want to lead any defence evidence. Only one issue remains to be decided is amount of compensation to which petitioner is entitled and from whom. Let, the matter be decided on merits.
I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record. My findings on the above mentioned issues are under;
ISSUE NO. 1:-
The principles to be followed in the case of motor accident claims has been laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Guwahati in case cited as Renu Bala Paul and Ors. vs. Bani Chakraborty and Ors. 1999 ACJ 634 by Hon'ble Guahati High Court that:
"In deciding a matter Tribunal should bear in mind the caution struck by the Apex Court that a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is neither a criminal case nor a civil case. In a criminal case in order to have conviction, the matter is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and in a civil case the matter is to be decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence, but in a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the standard proof is much below than what is required in a criminal case as well as in a civil case. No doubt before the Tribunal, there must be some material on the basis of which the Tribunal can arrive or decide things necessary to be decided for awarding compensation. But the Tribunal is not expected to take or to adopt the nicety of a civil or of a criminal case. After all, it is a summary inquiry and this is a legislation for the welfare of the society.
N.K.V. Bros (P) Ltd. vs. M.Karumai Ammal & Ors. (1980) 3 SCC 475 Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:--4-
"In Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, especially when truck and bus drivers operate nocturnally. This proverbial recklessness often persuades the courts, as has been observed by us earlier in other cases, to draw an initial presumption in several cases based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. We are emphasizing this aspect because we are often distressed by transport operators getting away with it thanks to judicial laxity, despite the fact that they do not exercise sufficient disciplinary control over the drivers in the matter careful driving. The heavy economic impact of culpable driving of public transport must bring owner and driver to their responsibility to their "neighbour".
So far as findings on issue no.1 are concerned, counsel for the parties do not want to lead any evidence and let the issues be decided on the basis of verification report and DAR proceedings. Neither respondent no.1 nor respondent no.2 the insurance company is disputing the factum of accident, the way it has been taken place and the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle is being prosecuted for rash and negligent driving resulting into accident and consequential grievous injuries on per person of injured Suresh Kumar. Hence, in view of the above discussions, this issue is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2:-
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Govind Yadav vs. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Civil Appeal No. 9014 of 2011 decided on 01.11.2011 has observed as under:
"The personal sufferings of the survivors and disabled persons are manifold. Some time they can be measured in terms of money but most of the times it is not possible to do so. If an individual is permanently disabled in an accident, the cost of his medical treatment and care is likely to be very high. In cases involving -5- total or partial disablement, the term "compensation" used in section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act") would include not only the expenses incurred for immediate treatment, but also the amount likely to be incurred for future medical treatment/care necessary for a particular injury or disability caused by an accident. A very large number of people involved in motor accidents are pedestrians, children, women and illiterate persons. Majority of them cannot, due to sheer ignorance, poverty and other disabilities, engage competent lawyers for proving negligence of the wrongdoer in adequate measure. The insurance companies with whom the vehicles involved in the accident are insured usually have battery of lawyers on their panel. They contest the claim petitions by raising all possible technical objections for ensuring that their clients are either completely absolved or their liabilities minimized. This results in prolonging the proceedings before the Tribunal. Sometimes the delay and litigation expenses' make the award passed by the Tribunal and even by the High Court (in appeal) meaningless. It is, therefore, imperative that the officers, who preside over the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal adopt a proactive approach and ensure that the claims filed under Sections 166 of the Act are disposed of with required urgency and compensation is awarded to the victims of the accident and/or their legal representatives in adequate measure. The amount of the compensation in such cases should invariably include pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Private Limited MANU/SC/0146/1995: (1995) 1 SCC 551, this Court while dealing with a case involving claim of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, referred to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Ward v. James (1965) - All ER 563, Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Volume 12 (page 446) and observed:
"Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance, (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial, (iii) other material loss. So for non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future, (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e, on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned -6- is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life".
In the same case, the court further observed:
"In its very nature whenever a tribunal or a court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guesswork, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standards".
In Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka MANU/SC/0803/2009: (2009)6 SCC 1, the three-Judge Bench was dealing with a case arising out of the complaint filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. While enhancing the compensation awarded by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission from Rs. 15 lakhs to Rs. 1 crore, the Bench made the following observations which can appropriately be applied for deciding the petitions filed under Section 166 of the Act:
"At the same time we often find that a person injured in an accident leaves his family in greater distress vis-...-vis a family in a case of death. In the latter case, the initial shock gives way to a feeling of resignation and acceptance, and in time, compels the family to move on. The case of an injured and disabled person is, however, more pitiable and the feeling of hurt, helplessness, despair and often destitution ensures every day. The support that is needed by a severely handicapped person comes at an enormous price, physical, financial and emotional, not only on the victim but even more so on his family and attendants and the stress saps their energy and destroys their equanimity".
In Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan Manu/SC/1303/2009: (2009) 13 SCC 422, this Court reiterated that the compensation awarded under the Act should be just and also identified the factors which should be kept in mind while determining the amount of compensation. The relevant portions of the Judgment are extracted below:
-7-The compensation which is required to be determined must be just. While the claimants are required to be compensated for the loss of their dependency, the same should not be considered to be a windfall. Unjust enrichment should be discouraged. This Court cannot also lose sight of the fact that in given cases, as for example death of the only son to a mother, she can never be compensated in monetary terms.
In Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Limited Manu/SC/0777/2010: (2010) 10 SCC 254, the Court considered the plea for enhancement of compensation made by the Appellant, who was a student of final year of engineering and had suffered 70% disablement in a motor accident. After noticing factual matrix of the case, the Court observed:
"We do not intend to review in detail state of authorities in relation to assessment of all damages for personal injury. Suffice it to say that the basis of assessment of all damages for personal injury is compensation. The whole idea is to put the claimant in the same position as ho was insofar as money can. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that the victim has done no wrong; he has suffered at the hands of the wrongdoer and the court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered".
In Raj Kumar V. Ajay Kumar Manu/SC/1018/2010: (2011) 1 SCC 343, the court considered some of the precedents and held:
"The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, ('the Act', for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as for as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which -8- he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and hie inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned".
In our view, the principles laid down in Arvind Kumar Mishra vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. (supra) and Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar (supra) must be followed by all the Tribunals and the High Court in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily. If the victim of the accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident".
The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages):
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising;
a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
iii) Future medical expenses.
Non Pecuniary damages (General damages):
iv) Damages for pain suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
-9-
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (I), Iii) (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii) (b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.
We shall now consider whether the compensation awarded to the petitioner is just and reasonable or he is entitled to enhanced compensation under any of the following heads:
i) Loss of earning and other gains due to the amputation of leg.
ii) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
iii)Future medical expenses.
iv)Compensation for pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the amputation of leg.
v) Loss of amenities including loss of the prospects of marriage.
vi)Loss of expectation of life.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Govind Yadav vs. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Civil Appeal No. 9014 of 2011 decided on 01.11.2011 has further observed as under:
"In this view of the matter, in our view, it would be difficult to hold that for future medical expenses which are required to be incurred by a victim, fresh award could be passed. However, for such medical treatment, the court has to arrive at a reasonable estimate on the basis of the evidence brought on record."-10-
"After the aforesaid judgment, the cost of living as also the cost of artificial limbs and expenses likely to be incurred for periodical replacement of such limb has substantially increased. Therefore, it will be just and proper to award a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the appellant for future treatment. If this amount is deposited in fixed deposit, the interest accruing on it will take care of the cost of artificial limb, fees of the doctor and other ancillary expenses."
"The compensation awarded by the Tribunal for pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the amputation of leg was meager. It is not in dispute that the appellant had remained in the hospital for a period of over three months. It is not possible for the tribunals and the courts to make a precise assessment of the pain and trauma suffered by a person whose limb is amputated as a result of accident. Even if the victim of accident gets artificial limb, he will suffer from different kinds of handicaps and social stigma throughout his life. Therefore, in all such cases, the Tribunals and the Courts should make a broad guess for the purpose of fixing the amount of compensation. Admittedly, at the time of accident, the Appellant was a young man of 24 years. For the remaining life, he will suffer the trauma of not being able to do his normal work. Therefore, we feel that ends of justice will be met b awarding him a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- in lieu of pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the amputation of leg."
"The compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the loss of amenities was also meager. It can only be a matter of imagination as to how the appellant will have to live for the rest of life with one artificial leg. The Appellant can be expected to live for at least 50 years. During this period he will not be able to live like normal human being and will not be able to enjoy the life. The prospects of his marriage have considerably reduced. Therefore, it would be just and reasonable to award him a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life."-11-
Pecuniary damages (Special damages):
As per MLC all four fingers and thumb of injured amputated and he suffered crush injury of right hand. Thereafter, he remained under treatment with Safdarjang Hospital and his treatment is still continuing vide various OPD cards. All four fingers and thumb of injured amputated and he suffered crush injury of right hand and suffered permanent physical disability to the extent of 41% as per disability certificate Ex.PX.
Injured / Petitioner has alleged that he had incurred Rs.7,000/- on his treatment, and has also placed on record certain medical bills which are corroborated by the medical prescriptions and treatment record. No dispute regarding the correctness and genuineness of these bills is raised so the injured / petitioner is thus entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 7,000/- towards medical expenses.
Injured/ Petitioner has proved the disability certificate as Ex.PX which shows that the petitioner suffered permanent disability of 41% in relation to right hand. Petitioner further stated that he may not be able to do any work for his livelihood and it is unlikely that a disability will improve.
Counsel for the petitioner cited the case decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Govind Yadav vs. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Civil Appeal No. 9014 of 2011 decided on 01.11.2011 and argued that in the present case the extent of disability be taken as full 41% as reported in disability certificate Ex.PX and compensation be fixed according to this extent. In this cited case the permanent disability assessed by the doctor in the certificate has been taken as it is to ascertain the amount of compensation and has not been reduced. It has come on record that till the date of accident he was doing the work of helper and due to disability he is not in a position to perform his daily routine work and he has to take help of others. He further stated that he was a young man of 20 years of age at -12- the time of accident and was able bodied but because of the said accident, he has become disabled person and cannot lead his life like a normal person because of the injuries sustained by him in the said accident.
Permanent disability is treated as akin to the death in relation to the loss of earning capacity but it would depend upon the extent of disability. In view of the above judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in such cases, the permanent disability as determined by the medical board is to be used.
The petitioner in his statement described his age as 20 years (at present 21 years) at the time of accident and to that effect placed on record copy of his 10th class mark sheet showing his date of birth as 18.01.1991, so in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court given in Sarla Verma vs. DTC 2009 ACJ 1298, multiplier of 18 has to be applied to count loss of earning capacity.
Injured/Petitioner alleged that at the time of accident he was helper on the offending vehicle but no document has been placed on record to show his employment as well as earnings. However, the injured has placed on record his 10 th pass mark-sheet to show that he was matriculate at the time of accident. In absence of any documentary evidence with regard to income as well as employment, petitioner has to be treated as a matriculate person according to the schedule of minimum wages and presumed to be earning a sum of Rs.7,826/- per month. Accordingly this amount of Rs.7,826/- per month has to be taken into consideration to assess the amount of compensation.
Injured/Petitioner was not having any permanent job. He was aged about 20 years at the time of accident. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sajha vs. National Insurance Co. 2010 ACJ 627 and New India Assurance Co. vs. Raja Ram MAC. APP. No. 175/06 decided on 25-8-2009 held that keeping in view the trend of increase of minimum wages from time to time and rises in price index and -13- inflation, it can be said that minimum wages would get almost double over a period of next 10 years and thus future prospects should be given upon minimum wages also. Thus applying the formula given in these judgments, the monthly income of the petitioner can be held at Rs.11,739/- (Rs.7,826 + 50%).
As per the case of injured, all four fingers and thumb of injured/petitioner amputated and he suffered crush injury of right hand to the extent of 41% disability as per disability certificate Ex.PX. He is not working being not capable of working and in that very nature of the things the functional disability is 100% more than 70% physical disability. Hence disability on injured in relation to right hand to the extent of 41%, is assessed to 100% functional disability as per judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled as Raviraj Udupa Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others 2012 ACJ 286 decided on 16.08.2011.
It is the claim of the injured / petitioner that at the time of accident he is about 20 years of age with good health and physique and was well earning but due to said accident the he lost his income and got 70% which amounts to complete functional disability of 100%, permanent disability as the petitioner would not be in a position to perform his daily routine work and he has to take help of others. Injured/petitioner has become disabled person and cannot lead his life like a normal person because of the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. The life of the petitioner has become hell due to the conduct of respondent No.1 besides severe economic loss. The income of petitioner has also affected and he would not be able to live a normal life and most likely he would be entirely dependent upon his parents/brothers and other relations. However, I assess the disability of injured to the extent of 90% functional disability as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2012 STPL (Web) CC Cases 12 SC.
-14-All four fingers and thumb of injured/petitioner amputated and he suffered crush injury of right hand and suffered permanent physical disability. He remained under treatment with Safdarjang Hospital and his treatment is still continuing. Medical record shows that he visited doctors from time to time as OPD patient. He has suffered the amputation of his right hand and suffered permanent physical disability of 41% as per disability certificate Ex.PX. In such situation, I am of the view that petitioner is required to be reimbursed the amount towards loss of income for six months only at Rs. 46,956/- (Rs.7826 x 6 months).
As no deduction from income has to be taken towards personal expenses in case of injury as per decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bimla vs. Gopal MAC. APP No.1028/2006 decided on 22-3-2010, so the total loss of future income or earning capacity comes to Rs.2,28,206.16 paise (in round figure) as per the formula (Rs.11739 x 12 x 18 x 90%). Accordingly petitioner is granted loss of future income at Rs. 2,28,206/- (in round figure).
Medical record shows that petitioner had visited number of times to hospital as OPD patient, though no proof of spending upon any conveyance is brought on record. Injured must have spent some amount on extensive visits to the hospitals during that period. In case of sickness and serious injury, a special diet in the form of healthy food, juices, milk etc. is provided instead of or in addition to the normal food. Hence, in absence of any evidence and documentary evidence, I am of the view that maximum petitioner can be paid Rs. 10,000/- towards special diet and Rs. 10,000/- towards conveyance charges.
Injured / petitioner also stated that he spent Rs.10,000/- upon attendant but no proof of the same is brought on record. The version of the injured/petitioner that he was working as helper and could not go for his work due to the accident and suffered loss of wages, has to be believed as correct keeping in view the nature of injuries of the petitioner as well as fact that he could not do work for several months -15- due to the injuries and during the period of treatment his family members must have done his routine works. In such situation, I deem it proper to grant sum of Rs.5,000/- towards attendant's charges.
Counsel for petitioner during arguments requested for awarding future medical expenses. But no evidence is brought on record that petitioner requires any further treatment in future. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that due to such type of injuries and disability as is suffered by the petitioner, petitioner now cannot do anything properly due to disability in his right hand and even cannot hold anything and write easily. Difficulty and inconvenience arises to perform even daily personal routine acts due to this disability. Hence I awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) Petitioner/Injured is a young man of 21 years of age and was able bodied person before the accident but because of the said accident, he has become disabled person and cannot lead his life like a normal person because of the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. The life of the petitioner has become hell due to the conduct of respondent No.1 besides severe economic loss. The income of injured/petitioner has also affected and he would not be able to live a normal life and most likely he would be entirely dependent upon his parents/brothers and other relations. Such type of non pecuniary losses cannot be assessed in terms of money but keeping in view the age, status and condition of the petitioner, extent of disability, hospital admissions and visits to doctors etc. he is granted lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferings, mental shock and trauma a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities and enjoyment of life as per the judgment of Govind Yadav's case.
Further, petitioners are entitled to claim abovesaid pecuniary and non pecuniary damages alongwith interest @ 9% p.a as per the judgment in case New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs Bhudhia Devi and others reported in 2010 ACJ -16- 2045. Beside this respondent no. 2 insurance company has failed to bring on record any other evidence to show that the documents of the Tata-407 bearing no.DL-1LK-1292 were not proper or genuine. Insurance company is not able to prove from any evidence that it is liable to be exonerated and is not liable to pay the compensation amount as ordered by the court. Hence, the respondent no.2 shall be liable to pay the entire compensation amount.
In view of the above discussions, this issue is decided in favour of injured/petitioner by holding that he is entitled to get the following total compensation from respondent no. 2:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages):
a) Medical expenses-----------------------------------------Rs. 7,000/-
b) Loss of income---------------------------------------------Rs. 46,956/-
c) Loss of future income------------------------------------Rs. 2,28,206/-
d) Special diet expenses------------------------------------Rs. 10,000/-
e) Conveyance charges-------------------------------------Rs. 10,000/-
f) Future medical treatment expenses-----------------Rs. 25,000/-
g) Attendant charges ---------------------------------------Rs. 5,000/-
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
h) Pain, suffering, mental shock and trauma---------Rs. 50,000/-
i) Loss of amenities and enjoyment of life------------Rs. 1,00,000/-
__________________
Total Rs. 4,82,162/-
Accordingly it is ordered that respondent no. 2 shall pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the above compensation amount from 28.11.2011 till realization.
-17-Issue no. 3 (Relief):-
On the basis of findings given above, present DAR is disposed off and an award is passed. Respondent no. 2 insurance company is directed to pay within 30 days a total sum of Rs.4,82,162/- to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 28.11.2011 till the compensation amount is fully paid.
It is further ordered that out of compensation amount, sum of Rs.2,50,000/- be kept in FDR in the name of petitioner for a period of five years, Rs.1,50,000/- be kept in FDR in the name of petitioner for a period of three years to be renewed from time to time. Remaining amount alongwith accrued interest be deposited in saving bank account of the petitioner with liberty to withdraw Rs.7,000/- p.m. till this amount is fully exhausted. However, petitioner is allowed to withdraw the quarterly interest on these FDRs. The FDRs shall not be encashed without permission of the court. No loan or advance shall be granted to the petitioner on the FDR. Respondent no. 2 insurance company to pay further sum of Rs. 31,000/- as counsel fee to Sh. A. K. Chaturvedi, Adv., Enrollment No. D-923/98(R) by preparing separate cheque in the name of counsel as per the judgment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha.
Copy of this judgment be given to petitioner and counsel for respondent no. 2. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (D.K. MALHOTRA)
Court on 24.04.2012 JUDGE, MACT (OUTER-II)
DELHI
-18-
Suresh Vs Satyaveer Singh & Others
M-85C/2011
17.05.2012
File is taken up on the application moved for making earthmatic correction in the amount granted under head of Future Loss of Income.
Present: Counsel for the Insurance company.
It is pointed out by counsel for Insurance company that though in the order it is written that calculation is on the basis of 11739x12x18x90% the amount which has been written as Rs.2,28,206/- which should have been Rs.22,82,061/-.
Heard. Perused.
The necessary earthmatic correction is allowed and it be read as Rs.22,82,061/- under the head of Future Loss of Income and accordingly total compensation amount granted to the petitioners comes to Rs.25,36,017/- after the earthmatic correction on page no.16 of the award.
Copy of the order be provided dasti to counsel for Insurance company for compliance.
(D. K.MALHOTRA) JUDGE, MACT (OUTER-II) DELHI/ 17/05/2012