Delhi District Court
Paul Mathew vs Rajiv Anand on 28 September, 2024
:1 :
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARU GUPTA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-01 (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No: 256/2017
Paul Mathew vs. Rajiv Anand & ors.
CNR No: DLSE01-002080-2017
1. Paul Mathew
S/o Late Sh. Joseph Mathew
R/o H. No.19, H-Block, Type-III Qtrs.
MAMC Complex, Mirdard Lane
New Delhi-110002.
Present address:
Polaprayil House Sreekandamangalam-PO
Via- Athirampuzha Kottayam-District
Kerala-686562.
.....Petitioner/claimant
Versus
1. Rajiv Anand
S/o Sh. Om Prakash Anand
R/o 72, 1st Floor, Kiran Vihar,
New Delhi 110092.
............Driver/Regd. Owner, Pajero car/Respondent no.1
2. ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins. Com. Ltd.(through its Manager) office at: Birla Tower, 5th Floor, 25, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.
............Insurance com., Pajero car/Respondent no.2 Digitally signed CHARU by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA 2024.09.28 Date:
04:39:14 +0530 MACT No.: 256/17 Paul Mathew v. Rajiv Anand & ors. P.No. 1 of 35 ss :2 :
3. Thomas V.V. S/o Sh. V. O. Varied Kutty R/o Flat no.2B,PKT A-3, Mayur Vihar,Phase-III New Delhi.
............Driver/Regd. Owner, Innova car/Respondent no.3
4. IFFCO Tokio Gen. Insurance Co. ltd.(through its Manager) Office at: IFFCO Township, Plot No.3 Sector 29, Gurgoan, Haryana-122001.
............Insurance company, Innova car/Respondent no.4
5. Jogi Chopal S/o Sh. Chetu Chopal R/o 3214, Gali no. 72E2, Molar Band Extn. Badarpur, New Delhi.
............Driver/owner, TATA Indigo/Respondent no.5
6. The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.(through its Manager) Office at: 8, Krishna Market, 1st Floor, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019.
............ Insurance company TATA Indigo/Respondent no.6
7. Sh. Manik Chand S/o Sh. Ram Swaroop R/o A-43, Ground Floor, Deepak Vihar, Near TATA Tower, New Delhi.
............Regd. Owner, TATA Magic/Respondent no.7(exparte)
8. Savio Publications (through its Director) Office at:100, II Floor, Old Rajender Nagar Market, New Delhi-110060.
............Regd.owner Ertiga/Respondent no.8 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.09.28 04:39:43 +0530 MACT No.: 256/17 Paul Mathew v. Rajiv Anand & ors. P.No. 2 of 35 ss :3 :
9. National Insurance Company ltd.
Office at : Jeevan Bharti Building Tower II 124, Level 4, 124, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001.
............insurance company Ertiga car/Respondent no.9 Date of accident : 16.12.2013 Result of accident : Grievous injury Date of filing of petition : 06.03.2014 Date of Decision : 28.09.2024 AWARD
1. The present claim petition arises out of a tragic road accident dated 16.12.2013 in which multiple vehicles collided on Yamuna Expressway, claiming several lives and causing uncountable injuries to the occupants. Sh. Paul Mathew was one such unfortunate occupant of one of the colliding vehicles, who suffered grievous injuries in that accident. It is equally unfortunate that the adjudication of the present petition has already consumed 11 years of his life and uncountable opportunities. The adjudication of the present claim may never be able to actually compensate the irreparable loss that such petitioner has suffered but is only an endeavor to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner.
2. The brief facts enumerated in the petition are that on 16.12.2013, Sh. Paul Mathew (petitioner) was travelling as a passenger in a vehicle driven by one Sh. K V Alexander (who Digitally signed CHARU by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA 04:39:56 Date: 2024.09.28 +0530 MACT No.: 256/17 Paul Mathew v. Rajiv Anand & ors. P.No. 3 of 35 ss :4 : died in the accident and whose legal heir is a claimant in connected claim petition MACT No. 255/2017). Both were travelling from Delhi to Agra, in an Ertiga Car bearing no. DL- 9CAC-5086 (hereinafter referred to as vehicle C). At about 08:30
-08:45 a.m., around 10 kms before Mathura Toll, at Yamuna Expressway, while going from Delhi towards Mathura (precisely within jurisdiction of PS Sureir, District Mathura, UP) vehicle C was hit by a speeding Pajero Car bearing no. DL-7CN-1042 (hereinafter referred to as vehicle B) in the process of overtaking vehicle C. Vehicle B dashed into vehicle C from its right side and then rammed into a disabled stationary vehicle TATA Magic/TATA Ace bearing no. DL-1CS-4348 (hereinafter referred to as vehicle A) which was parked in the middle of the road. In the meantime, all of a sudden, another vehicle i.e. an Innova Car bearing no. DL-1ZZ-0592 (hereinafter referred to as vehicle D) came at a grossly high speed and dashed into vehicle C from behind. Such vehicle D also rammed into another vehicle i.e. Indigo car bearing no. DL-13C-1485 (hereinafter referred to as vehicle E) as a forceful impact of the collision between vehicle D and vehicle C. It has been alleged that the accident occurred due to composite rashness of the drivers of vehicle B, and D which were being driven at high speed in complete ignorance of the traffic rules as well as due to negligence of owner of vehicle A. Sh. Paul Mathew suffered grievous injuries due to which he was immediately removed to Kailash Hospital, Greator Noida. He was then shifted to Lok Nayak Hospital for further treatment.
After its collision with vehicle C, due to high momentum, vehicle D turned astray to its right and dashed into vehicle E CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.09.28 04:40:10 +0530 MACT No.: 256/17 Paul Mathew v. Rajiv Anand & ors. P.No. 4 of 35 ss :5 : causing death of one of its occupants while causing grievous injury to another. The crashing of vehicle D into vehicle C, apart from causing death of driver of vehicle C Sh. K V Alexander, also caused grievous injury to one of the occupants of vehicle C, namely Sh. Paul Mathew (petitioner in this case).
The accident can be comprehensibly depicted in the form of following flow chart:
(after overtaking vehicle C) Vehicle D(Innova car) → Vehicle C(Ertiga car) →→→→ Vehicle B (Pajero car)→ Vehicle A (stationary TATA Magic/TATA Ace) ↓ Vehicle E (Indigo car) Yamuna Expressway Delhi → Agra
3. An FIR of the incident was registered with FIR No.34/14 dated 11.02.2014 u/s 279/338/304A of IPC at PS Sureir Distt.
Mathura, U.P. After investigation the U.P. police filed a cancellation report finding the accidents to be " ittefaqia"
meaning "coincidentally/bychance/perchance". This report stood accepted by concerned criminal court vide order dated 28.06.2015.
4. As per record, respondent no.1 (Rajeev Anand) is the registered owner/driver of vehicle B, respondent no.3 (Thomas VV) is registered owner/driver of vehicle D, respondent no. 5 (Jogi Chopal) is driver cum owner of vehicle E, respondent no. 7 (Sh. Manik Chand) is owner of vehicle A and respondent no.8 (Savio Publications) is registered owner of vehicle C. Respondent no.4 (IFFCO Tokio General Insurance CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA 04:40:20 +0530 Date: 2024.09.28 MACT No.: 256/17 Paul Mathew v. Rajiv Anand & ors. P.No. 5 of 35 ss :6 : company) is insurer of vehicle D, respondent no.6 (Oriental Insurance company) is insurer of vehicle E, respondent no. 2 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance company) is insurer of vehicle B and respondent no. 9 (National Insurance company) is insurer of vehicle C.
5. Vide order dated 25.10.2018, respondent no.7 (owner of vehicle A) was proceeded ex-parte. In response to the claim petition, written statement was filed by respondent no.1, respondent no.2, respondent no.3, respondent no. 4, respondent no. 6, respondent no. 8 and respondent no. 9.
6. As per reply of respondent no.1, it is denied that he was driving his vehicle B in a rash or negligent manner. It is pleaded that the vehicles rammed into each other owing to their high speed as being on an expressway. It is further pleaded that vehicle E was not hit by him and thus he cannot be made liable to compensate the casualty. On the same grounds respondent no.2, insurer of vehicle B has refuted its liability to compensate. It has however not denied that vehicle B was duly insured with respondent no.2.
As per reply of respondent no.3, the accident occurred due to piling up of vehicles crashing into each other due to dense fog and poor visibility. It is denied that vehicle D had hit vehicle E and that respondent no.3 or his vehicle D did not contribute to the accident or death or injury to any person. It has been pleaded that infact it is the driver of vehicle E who failed to maintain a proper distance and thus was solely responsible for the accident.
CHARU Digitally signed by
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2024.09.28
04:40:30 +0530
MACT No.: 256/17 Paul Mathew v. Rajiv Anand & ors. P.No. 6 of 35 ss
:7 :
Respondent no. 4 has admitted to be insurer of vehicle D however, denied rash or negligent driving by its driver cum owner i.e. respondent no. 3. It is pleaded that respondent no.7 has been grossly negligent in having parked his vehicle A in the middle of the main road in violation of traffic rules while the driver of vehicle B, vehicle C and vehicle E were equally rash in driving their vehicle in violation to the traffic rules. It is pleaded that there is a delay of 1 month 26 days in registration of the FIR while the informant of the accident was not an eye witness to the accident. It is pleaded that even the police could not find the guilt of any vehicle and itself presented a cancellation report terming the accidents to be ittefaqia. It is further pleaded that the accident appears to be a result of composite /contributory negligence of the owner of vehicle A and the drivers of vehicle B, vehicle C and vehicle E. Respondent no.6 is admittedly the insurer of vehicle E. It is denied that driver of vehicle E was rash or negligent in driving the vehicle or caused the accident. It is pleaded that the accident has been caused due to rashness on the part of driver of vehicle B and negligence of respondent no.7, in stranding his vehicle without any sign or indication on the road.
Respondent no. 8 has also denied its liability on the ground that the driver of vehicle C was neither rash nor negligent in driving the vehicle nor did the collision between vehicle D and vehicle E was caused due to involvement of vehicle C. It is pleaded that infact driver and passenger of vehicle C are themselves victims of the accident. It is pleaded that it was due to exorbitantly high speed of vehicle D that it hit vehicle C as well CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA 04:40:40 +0530 Date: 2024.09.28 MACT No.: 256/17 Paul Mathew v. Rajiv Anand & ors. P.No. 7 of 35 ss :8 : as vehicle E causing casualty. It is further pleaded that the accident involves composite negligence of the driver of vehicle B and vehicle D. Respondent no.9, though not denied to be insurer of vehicle C, has denied its liability on the ground that vehicle C was being driven by one Sh. K V Alexander (since deceased in the accident) without permission or authority of the insured. It is further pleaded that vehicle C was not being driven in rash or negligent manner and that the accident occurred due to negligence and rashness of vehicle A, B, D and E. No reply was filed by respondent no.5 despite opportunity.
7. From the pleadings, following issues were framed on 28.07.2022.
1) Whether the petitioner suffered grievous in a road traffic accident on 16.12.2013 due to rash and composite negligence of vehicle bearing no. DL-7CN-1042 (Pajero )driven and owned by R-1/Rajeev Anand and insured with R-2/ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins. Co. vehicle bearing no. DL-1ZZ-0592 driven and owned by R-3/Thomas VV and insured with R-4/Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co. vehicle bearing no. DL-13C-1485 (Tata Indigo) driven and owned by Jogi Chaupal and insured with Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd, vehicle bearing no. DL1LS 4348 (Tata Magic) driven and owned by R-7/Manik Chand and vehicle bearing no. DL 9CAC 5086 (Ertiga) owned by R-
8/Savio Publication and insured with R-9/National Insurance company ltd ?OPP
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, is so, to what extent and from whom? OPP
3) Relief.
8. Thereafter, evidence was led by the petitioner by examining himself as PW-1. CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.09.28 04:40:49 +0530 MACT No.: 256/17 Paul Mathew v. Rajiv Anand & ors. P.No. 8 of 35 ss :9 : PW-1/petitioner Paul Mathew tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/1 wherein he reiterated the contents /averments made in his claim petition qua the accident. He stated that he is the petitioner in the claim petition and is 66 year old senior citizen presently living in Kerala after retirement from private job in Delhi.
PW-1 stated that on 16.12.2013, he along with Sh. K.V Alexander and another colleague were going from Delhi to Mathura in Maruti Ertiga Car bearing No. DL-9C- AC-5086. At about 8:30-8:45 AM when they reached near about 10 KM before 202 Mathura Toll on Yemuna Expressway, PS Surcir, Distt. Mathura, UP, their Ertiga car was hit by a speeding Pajero Car bearing No. DL-7C-N-1042 coming from behind, which in the process of overtaking their car, dashed from right side of Ertiga and then rammed into a disabled TATA Magic bearing No. DL- 1CS-4348. Immediately after this, a rocket-speeding Innova Car bearing No. DL-1ZZ-0592 came from behind and hit their Ertiga car within a flick of second and before halting, it turned towards its right and struck/dashed an Indigo Car bearing No. DL-13-C- 1485.
PW-1 stated that the drivers of the offending vehicles i.e. Pajero No. DL-7CN-1042 and Innova No. DL-IZZ-0592 were driving their vehicles at a very high speed and PW-1 and deceased Sh. Alexander K.V. who was driving the Ertiga car, suffered grievous injuries on account of the impact of the direct collisions of these vehicles from both sides. Sh. Alexander K.V later succumbed in Hospital due to the fatal injuries suffered in this accident. They both suffered serious injuries primarily due to Digitally signed CHARU by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.09.28 04:40:58 +0530 MACT No.: 256/17 Paul Mathew v. Rajiv Anand & ors. P.No. 9 of 35 ss :10 : the rash and negligent driving of drivers of Pajero car and Innova car. Negligence was also there on the part of other collided vehicles i.e TATA Ace bearing No. DL-ILS-4348 which was lying disabled on the road and one TATA Indigo Car No. DL- 13C-1485 which was instantaneously rammed into the back of the Innova car resulting in serious injuries also to the occupants of Tata Indigo car. This accident occurred due to the composite negligence of offending vehicles Pajero and Innova which directly hit the Ertiga car and also due to the negligence of TATA Indigo car and TATA Ace which were also involved in the collision due the negligence of the respective drivers of these vehicles.
PW-1 stated that he suffered grievous injuries with multiple fractures on right ribs and scapula, right shoulder and upper chest due to this road accident. PW-1 was taken to Kailash Hospital, Greater Noida and then shifted to Lok Nayak Hospital. Delhi for further treatment. He remained admitted from 16.12.2013 to 17.12.2013 in Kailash Hospital and then his family shifted him to Lok Nayak Hospital, Delhi and further treatments were in JPLN Hospital, Delhi. All papers related to his treatment are Ex.PWI/A (colly).
That a case vide FIR No. 34/14, dated 11.02.2014, u/s 279/338/304-A IPC was registered at P.S Sureir, District Mathura, U.P. Copy of FIR is exhibited as Ex-PW1/B. PW-1 stated that respondent No. 1 was driver and registered owner of Pajero Car No. DL- CN-1042 at the time of accident and respondent No. 2 is the Insurer of Pajero car, respondent No. 3 was driver and registered owner of Innova Car Digitally signed CHARU by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA 2024.09.28 Date:
04:41:08 +0530 MACT No.: 256/17 Paul Mathew v. Rajiv Anand & ors. P.No. 10 of 35 ss :11 : No. DL-127-0592 at the time of accident and respondent No. 4 is the Insurer of Innova Cr. Respondent No. 5 was the driver and registered owner of TATA Indigo Car No. DL-13C-1485 at the time of accident and respondent No. 6 is the Insurer of TATA Indigo Car. Respondent No. 7 is the registered owner of TATA Ace No. DL-1LS-4348 which was lying static on the road. Respondent No. 8 was the registered owner of Maruti Ertiga Car No. DL-9C AC-5086 in which PW-1 was travelling with deceased K.V Alexander who was driving the car at the time of accident and respondent No. 9 is the Insurer of vehicle Ertiga car. Deceased K.V Alexander was driving Ertiga car at the time of accidents and respondent No. 10 (a,b,c,d) are the legal heirs of the deceased driver of Ertiga car. The accident took place due to composite negligence of all the above cited offending vehicles and thereby all the respondents are jointly and proportionately liable to pay compensation to PW-1 as per the provisions of law of torts.
PW-1 stated that he was gainfully employed as office assistant with Savio Publications Pvt. Ltd. earning about Rs.15,000/- per month at the time of road accident dated 16.12.2013. He suffered loss of earning due to accidental injuries, was confined to bed and was unable to work ever since.
PW-1 had to incur expenses on doctors fee, pharmacy, physiotherapy, attendant, conveyance, special diet ete. and still in difficulties and physiotherapy etc., are still continuing. PW-1 had to spent huge amount for treatment till date and expenses are still going on. Besides monetary loss, he had also suffered non- pecuniary damages such as pain and suffering, loss of amenities, Digitally signed CHARU by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA 2024.09.28 Date:
04:41:20 +0530 MACT No.: 256/17 Paul Mathew v. Rajiv Anand & ors. P.No. 11 of 35 ss :12 : speedy depreciation of life and limbs due to this road accident and may be compensated on all these heads.
PW-1 stated that he may be granted compensation of Rs.3 lakhs for pain and sufferings, Rs.2 lakhs for medical expenses incurred and Rs. 5 lakhs for loss of earnings due to the confinement and physical inability due to this accident.
Copy of Adhar Card and PAN card are Ex.PW1/C (colly). PW-1 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.4, respondent no.2, respondent no.6 and respondent no.9. Cross examination conducted by respondent no.2 was adopted by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3. Respondent no. 8 did not cross examined PW-1 despite opportunity.
9. Respondent/Thomas VV examined himself as respondent witness. He deposed that on 16.12.2013, in early morning he was going to Agra on J.P. Expressway Highway before second Toll Plaza. There was fog. Because of such fog, his vehicle was plying slowly on the left side of the road alongwith blinking light. Due to fog, he parked his vehicle on the left side of the road. His vehicle did not collide with any vehicle. There is no complaint against his vehicle and only after two months, he came to know about the present complaint. He was cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for IFFCO Tokio insurance company and learned counsel for claimants.
10. Final Arguments in detail were addressed by learned counsel for the claimant/petitioner and counsel for all the CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA 04:41:29 +0530 Date: 2024.09.28 MACT No.: 256/17 Paul Mathew v. Rajiv Anand & ors. P.No. 12 of 35 ss :13 : contesting respondents.
11. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, evidence adduced and arguments addressed, issue wise findings are as under:Issue No. 1
Whether the petitioner suffered grievous injury in a road traffic accident on 16.12.2013 due to rash and composite negligence of vehicle bearing no. DL-7CN-1042 (Pajero )driven and owned by R-1/Rajeev Anand and insured with R-2/ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins. Co. vehicle bearing no. DL-1ZZ-0592 driven and owned by R-3/Thomas VV and insured with R-4/Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co. vehicle bearing no. DL- 13C-1485 (Tata Indigo) driven and owned by Jogi Chaupal and insured with Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd, vehicle bearing no. DL1LS 4348 (Tata Magic) driven and owned by R-7/Manik Chand and vehicle bearing no. DL 9CAC 5086 (Ertiga) owned by R-8/Savio Publication and insured with R-9/National Insurance company ltd?OPP
12. In Bimla Devi & Ors vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & ors [(2009) 13 SC 530,[ in Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, [2001 ACJ 421 SC[, in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pushpa Rana cited as [2009 ACJ 287], it has been held that the negligence has to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view is to be taken. It has been further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicle Act are not akin to the proceedings in a Civil Suit and hence, strict rules of evidence are not applicable.Digitally signed
CHARU by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA 04:41:38 Date: 2024.09.28 +0530 MACT No.: 256/17 Paul Mathew v. Rajiv Anand & ors. P.No. 13 of 35 ss :14 : Role of vehicle A
13. In the present case, it is not denied by any of the respondents that the accident occurred primarily on account of vehicle A, stranded unattended, in a stationary condition on a road. The owner of such vehicle A remains ex-parte and has thus not even raised any defence or justified leaving his vehicle on the road. There is no averment from either side that such vehicle A was left on the road due to any mechanical error or disfunctioning or that any sign or indicator were put to caution the other vehicles plying on the road. The manner in which vehicle A was left on an expressway road is res ipsa loquitor to the negligence of the owner of such vehicle.
Role of vehicle B and vehicle C
14. It is the version of the petitioner that it is due to composite negligence of all the vehicles, including vehicle B that the accident was caused. Petitioner has described the role of vehicle B as already discussed in the brief facts of the case. During his cross-examination, he has admitted that he was not within the line of sight of the accident. He has testified that he was sitting on the rear seat and he did not see any other car involved in the accident. At the same time, it is a matter of record that petitioner was a passenger in vehicle C. he has denied neglligence of driver of vehicle C. A defence has thus been raised on behalf of respondents that petitioner, though may have been present on the spot, his testimony falls short of being an eye witness to the alleged accident. It is further pleaded that since another co passenger, namely one K.V. Thomas, who is also alleged to have Digitally signed CHARU by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.09.28 04:41:46 +0530 MACT No.: 256/17 Paul Mathew v. Rajiv Anand & ors. P.No. 14 of 35 ss :15 : been travelling in vehicle C, has not been examined, there is virtually no eye witness to the accident and thus negligence of vehicle B cannot be said to have been proved.
Reliance is placed on observation of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunita vs. Rajasthan State Transport corporation, AIR 2019 SC 994 wherein the court held that the approach in examining the evidence in accident claim is not to find fault with non examination of some "best" eye witness in the case but to analyze the evidence already on record to ascertain whether that it sufficient to answer the matters in issue on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. As such, unlike in a criminal trial, for the purpose of adjudicating an accident claim, this Tribunal is not guided by the number of witnesses examined by the petitioner or if such witness exactly and accurately witnessed the entire accident.
In the considered opinion of the court, the final report/closure report filed by the police and heavily relied upon by the respondents to seek exoneration from their liability, itself shows the sequence in which the vehicles collided with each other. In fact, in his reply, driver of vehicle B has not denied that he had not attempted to overtake or overtaken vehicle C. He has stated that he was driving his vehicle at a slow speed, following traffic rules and that the collision occurred due to rashness and negligence of other vehicles which were being driven at very high speed. There is no averment in his written statement, denying collision of his car i.e. vehicle B with vehicle A or vehicle C. Though, vehicle B did not directly hit vehicle E, it is due to prima facie negligence of vehicle B in overtakingDigitally vehicle CHARU CHARU GUPTA signed by Date: 2024.09.28 GUPTA 04:41:54 +0530 MACT No.: 256/17 Paul Mathew v. Rajiv Anand & ors. P.No. 15 of 35 ss :16 : C, that vehicle D collided with vehicle C and went astray to the wrong side, causing it to collide with vehicle E which was moving in a separate lane.
The circumstances (weather conditions) and manner in which the accident took place and the level of destruction and casualty that it caused renders the negligence of vehicle B self evident in as much as no care or caution was resorted to by such vehicle despite the adverse weather condition. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor would thus be applicable in the present case.
Further, it is evident from the date and time of the occurrence of the accident that the expressway road may have been hazy due to presence of fog. Thus, impaired visibility due to presence of fog cannot be ruled out. In such circumstances, even driving of a vehicle at such a speed (if not slow) that it left no scope for its driver to halt it or rendered it beyond his control to apply brakes or foresee a stranded vehicle or a stationary object from a safer distance, is certainly an act of recklessness.
It has been alleged by the petitioner and not denied by respondent no.5 (driver of vehicle B) that such driver of vehicle B was overtaking vehicle C at the time when collision with vehicle A occurred. It is while overtaking vehicle C by vehicle B that vehicle B crashed into vehicle A and further led it to collide with vehicle C. Section 14 of The Motor Vehicle (Driving) Regulations 2017 prohibits overtaking of vehicle when the visibility on the road is unclear due to weather condition. Even the speed limit on highways and expressways is reduced during that time of the year due to visibility issues. It thus becomes evident from the circumstances and manner of accident that if CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.09.28 04:42:00 +0530 MACT No.: 256/17 Paul Mathew v. Rajiv Anand & ors. P.No. 16 of 35 ss :17 : vehicle C was plying at an expected speed and had maintained a safe distance from any vehicle or unforeseen object ahead of it, the accident was still inevitable due to sudden overtaking by vehicle B. Overtaking or deviating from lane driving by vehicle B on a foggy day of early winters was an absolutely reckless conduct by the driver of vehicle B. Thus, this Tribunal does not find any fault or negligence in driving of vehicle C but finds it to be gross rashness on the part of driver of vehicle B to have attempted to overtake vehicle C and breaching the safe distance between vehicle C and stranded vehicle A. Role of vehicle D
15. It is not denied that vehicle C was also hit from behind by vehicle D. The level of damage that occurred on account of such collision itself speaks about the speed at which vehicle D was being driven. Such accident could have been avoided had vehicle D maintained a reasonable speed and control over the brake or driven the vehicle with required precaution especially considering the weather and visibility. The circumstances make it abundantly evident that the speed of vehicle D must have been so high that it was neither able to apply brakes timely nor foresee the crashes ahead. It is this overspeeding and recklessness of the driver of vehicle D that not only cause its accident with vehicle C but also caused it to collide it with vehicle E, plying on its right side. Thus, driver of vehicle D is held to be grossly reckless in driving his vehicle.
Role of vehicle E Digitally signed
CHARU by CHARU
GUPTA
GUPTA 2024.09.28
Date:
04:42:07 +0530
MACT No.: 256/17 Paul Mathew v. Rajiv Anand & ors. P.No. 17 of 35 ss
:18 :
16. Though, it has been pleaded by respondents that driver of vehicle E was driving in violation to the traffic rules, there is nothing on record to show or prove any apparent defiance of traffic rules or overspeeding by driver of vehicle E. There is no averment that vehicle E was not plying in its lane or had done any act which led to the accident. As such, no fault, rashness or negligence can be imputed on the part of vehicle E. Delay in FIR and filing of closure report
17. A defence has been raised by the respondents that since the FIR in the present case was registered only after a delay of 1 month and 36 days and that after investigation, a closure report was filed by the investigating officer giving a finding that the accidents were ittefaqia. It has been pleaded that despite thorough investigation, the investigating officer or the concerned criminal court accepting such a closure report, could not find any fault or guilt on the part of drivers of any of vehicles involved in the accident.
18. This Tribunal has gone through the closure report filed in the case. Though, the standard to determine rash or negligent driving under the Penal Law is way higher than in an inquiry proceeding under The Motor Vehicle Act, this Tribunal holds no hesitation in observing serious lapse on the part of U.P Police in firstly, not having registered an FIR promptly despite such a huge road mishap and secondly, by filing a closure report after recording statements of purported eye witnesses, none of whom were related to the accident or were occupants of any of the CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA 04:42:14 +0530 Date: 2024.09.28 MACT No.: 256/17 Paul Mathew v. Rajiv Anand & ors. P.No. 18 of 35 ss :19 : vehicles involved in the crashed. In fact, the police recorded statements of around 10 purported independent persons, statements of all of whom are verbatim. Such closure report lacks a descriptive site plan or a proper mechanical inspection report. Even the particulars of the owner of vehicle A are found to be incomplete and no efforts are seen on the part of the investigating officer to have traced or tracked him. No attempt has been made by the investigating officer to even find out if vehicle A (which was the epicenter of crashes) was insured or not. No attempt was made by the investigating officer to even approach the injured victims for recording their statements. The closure so filed is an exemplar of a trumpery and shoddy investigation.
19. It is a settled law that the finding of the police or even a criminal court is not binding on the MACT more so as the standard of proof in determining rash or negligent driving is much higher in criminal cases than in enquiry proceedings such as the present one. Thus, neither the delay in registration in FIR nor filing of closure report by the police nor even acceptance of any such report as "a report against agyaat vahan/untrace vehicle" is binding on this Tribunal.
20. In this regard, reliance is placed on the observation of Hob'ble Apex Court in Ravi vs. Badrinarayan & ors., 2011 ACJ 911, wherein even a delay of 3 months in lodging a complaint after the accident was not considered to be fatal to the case of claimants. The court observed:
"...21. The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.09.28 04:42:25 +0530 MACT No.: 256/17 Paul Mathew v. Rajiv Anand & ors. P.No. 19 of 35 ss :20 : is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences. Lodging of FIR certainly proves factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodging of FIR. Unless kith and kin if the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquility of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons..."
21. Further in a recent decision in Mathew Alexander vs. Mohd. Shafi & anr. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 5321, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the final report filed in a criminal investigation connected to the accident would not have a bearing on the claim petition and that the claim petition must be considered on its own merits.
Composite negligence
22. In the instant case, the accident and casualty arising therefrom, involves a number of vehicles. It has been held in T O Anthony vs. Karvarnan & ors. 2008 AIR SCW 2045, wherein Supreme court held that composite negligence refers to negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrong doers, it is said that the person was injured on account of composite negligence of those wrong doers.
From the above discussion, it is observed that the accident Digitally signed CHARU by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA 04:42:33 Date: 2024.09.28 +0530 MACT No.: 256/17 Paul Mathew v. Rajiv Anand & ors. P.No. 20 of 35 ss :21 : and death of /injury to occupants of vehicle C and E has been caused due to composite negligence of vehicle A, B and D. Hence, based on the circumstances in which accidents occurred, the proportion of composite negligence of vehicle A, rashness of driver of vehicle B and vehicle D is assessed to the extent of 20%, 40% and 40% respectively. Owners /drivers and insurance companies of vehicle A, B and D are vicariously liable to compensate the petitioner(s) proportionately.
23. In totality of circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the claimant(s)/petitioner(s) has/have been able to prove on the scales of preponderance of probabilities that the accident in question, took place due to negligent of owner of vehicle A and gross rashness in driving by drivers of vehicle B and D. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioner(s)/ claimant(s) and against respondent no. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7.
Issue no. 2 Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, is so, to what extent and from whom? OPP
24. In the instant case, insurance companies of vehicle B and D i.e. respondent no. 2 and 4, have not raised any statutory defence against respondent no.3 and 1. Under the contractual liability arising out of the insurance policy/contract of insurance, both the insurance companies i.e. IFFCO Tokio Gen. Ins. co. and ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins. Co. are liable to indemnify the insurers i.e. respondent no.3 and 1 by compensating the petitioner(s). Respondent no. 7 is proportionately liable to compensate the CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU GUPTA Date: 2024.09.28 GUPTA 04:42:44 +0530 MACT No.: 256/17 Paul Mathew v. Rajiv Anand & ors. P.No. 21 of 35 ss :22 : petitioner(s) as discussed in issue no.1.
25. Further it is noted that the heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, 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).
(1) In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). (2) It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii),
(v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU GUPTA Date: 2024.09.28 GUPTA 04:42:52 +0530 MACT No.: 256/17 Paul Mathew v. Rajiv Anand & ors. P.No. 22 of 35 ss :23 : permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.
(3) Assessment of pecuniary damages under Item (i) and under Item (ii) (a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence.
(4) Award under the head of future medical expenses--Item
(iii)--depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. (5) Assessment of non-pecuniary damages--Items (iv), (v) and (vi)--involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decisions of Hon'ble SC and Hon'ble High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. (6) Observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr. is quoted hereunder:
"10. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.09.28 04:43:00 +0530 MACT No.: 256/17 Paul Mathew v. Rajiv Anand & ors. P.No. 23 of 35 ss :24 : any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or
(iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of `loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by Digitally signed CHARU by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.09.28 04:43:06 +0530 MACT No.: 256/17 Paul Mathew v. Rajiv Anand & ors. P.No. 24 of 35 ss :25 : treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation.
PECUNIARY /SPECIAL DAMAGES
(i) Loss of earnings.
Actual loss of earning:
26. As regards, loss of income, petitioner has alleged that to have been working as an Office Assistant at M/s. Savio Publications Pvt. Ltd. and earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. It is pleaded by the petitioner that due to injury suffered in the accident, he remained hospitalized for a few days and is thus entitled to loss of salary for such period.
On the other hand, Respondents have refuted his entitlement to the claim on the ground that no MLC of the victim was prepared after the accident and secondly that the victim has failed to prove his employment or income by examining the employer.
In the considered opinion of Tribunal, preparation of MLC or registration of FIR etc. is not sine qua non to a claim for compensation under Motor Vehicle Act. In the instant case, though technically, there is no MLC of the victim, petitioner has relied upon his medical documents showing his admission at Kailash hospital on 16.12.2013 where he was diagnosed with CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU GUPTA Date: 2024.09.28 GUPTA 04:43:15 +0530 MACT No.: 256/17 Paul Mathew v. Rajiv Anand & ors. P.No. 25 of 35 ss :26 : RTA fracture of scapula(RT) with multiple rib fracture. Another document shows his admission to Lok Nayak hospital on 17.12.2013 and discharge on 21.12.2013. Both the documents also reveal that the patient was admitted on 16.12.2023 with alleged history of road traffic accident. In such circumstances, the medical record/discharge summary is sufficient to be relied upon this Tribunal as a proof of accident and injury suffered by petitioner therein. Merely by disputing the authenticity of such medical record, respondents cannot be allowed to challenge the injuries to have not been suffered by the petitioner in such accident.
27. As per record, period of hospitalization is around 6 days, however, with the nature of injury i.e. multiple rib fracture and fracture of scapula, it is assumed that the petitioner would have remained confined to bed and would have been incapacitated from working for at least three months. As per record, petitioner is a graduate from Faculty of Commerce, University of Kerala, in Cost Accounting. However, as no salary slip etc. has been filed, his income is assumed to be that of a skilled worker of Delhi (i.e. address reflected in the Aadhar card). As such, his monthly income is assumed to be Rs.10,686/-. Hence, actual loss of income would have been for at least 3 months i.e. Rs.10,686/- X3=Rs.32,058/-.
Loss of future income/earnings:
28. Since, there is no averment that the petitioner suffered any permanent disability or has been incapacitated from working for CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.09.28 04:43:22 +0530 MACT No.: 256/17 Paul Mathew v. Rajiv Anand & ors. P.No. 26 of 35 ss :27 : the rest of his life, no compensation towards future income is payable.
(ii) Future Medical Expenses:
29. Since there is no amputation of any limb of the petitioner caused due to injury in the accident and no evidence has been led qua continuous future treatment, no compensation is being granted under this head.
(iii) Expenses relating to treatment:
30. In this case, claimant has only filed one medical treatment expense/bills pertaining to treatment at Kailash Hospital Ex.PW1/A. The same is to the tune of Rs.3,741/- and is accordingly, awarded as expenses towards medical treatment.
Apart from expenditure on treatment, a sum of Rs.50,000/- under each head i.e. conveyance, special diet and nursing/ attendant is granted to the petitioner.
31. In this background, considering the material and evidence on record and the law on compensation in such like cases, as already discussed above, compensation in the present case is calculated as under:
Sl. Pecuniary loss : - Quantum
no.
1. (I) Expenditure on treatment : Rs.3,741/-
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance : Rs.50,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs.50,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing / attendant : Rs.50,000/-
Digitally signed
CHARU by CHARU
GUPTA
GUPTA 04:43:31
Date: 2024.09.28
+0530
MACT No.: 256/17 Paul Mathew v. Rajiv Anand & ors. P.No. 27 of 35 ss
:28 :
(v) Loss of income : Rs.32,058/-
Compensation towards loss of income, as noted above (Rs.10,686/-X3)
(vi) Cost of artificial limbs (if NA applicable) :
(vii) Any other loss / expenditure : NA
2. Non-Pecuniary Loss :
(I) Compensation of mental and Rs.1,00,000/- physical shock :
(ii) Pain and suffering : Rs.1,00,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life : Rs.1,00,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration : NA
(v) Loss of marriage prospects : Nil
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity (I) Percentage of disability assessed Nil and nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Already granted expectation of life span on account of disability :
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning Already granted capacity in relation to disability:
(iv) Loss of future Income: Nil
Total Compensation Rs.4,85,799/-
Deduction, if any, Nil.
Total Compensation after deduction Nil.
Interest : All above amount
shall be along
with interest @
7.5 % per annum
on total principal
award amount
from date of filing
CHARU Digitally signed by
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2024.09.28
04:43:39 +0530
MACT No.: 256/17 Paul Mathew v. Rajiv Anand & ors. P.No. 28 of 35 ss
:29 :
of petition till
actual realization.
32. The total compensation payable to the claimant would be Rs.4,85,799/- with simple interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of petition till its actual realization.
Liability
33. As already discussed, principal award amount/ compensation will be payable by respondent no. 2, 4 and 7 in proportion of 40:40:20 with simple interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of petition till actual realization.
Directions Regarding Deposit of Award Amount in Bank:
34. In compliance of directions issued vide order dated 16.11.2021 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition Civil No.534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India the award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT SAVING ACCOUNT No. 00000042706875094, IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir in the prescribed format i.e. MCOP Number on the file of (Claims Tribunal Name) Date of award, Compensation Amount, Income Tax Deduction at Source, Bank Transaction Reference No./Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. In turn, the State Bank of India, Saket Courts Branch shall CHARUreceive the Digitally signed by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.09.28 04:43:45 +0530 MACT No.: 256/17 Paul Mathew v. Rajiv Anand & ors. P.No. 29 of 35 ss :30 : deposited sum and capture the above information and furnish a statement of account on a daily basis to the Nazir of this Tribunal to reconcile the deposits of compensation and the respective MCOPs towards which such deposits are made. On such deposits being made, the insurance company shall submit a letter to the Nazir of this Tribunal enclosing a copy of the said bank advice, in prescribed format as above, as per which the deposit made to the bank account of this Tribunal, to enable this Tribunal to keep tab on the deposits made and the MCOPs for which they were made. The Payment advice for remittance of compensation is as under:
PAYMENT ADVICE FOR REMITTANCE OF
COMPENSATION :
............ Bank ................... To:
............... Court ........................ We confirm remittance of compensation as follows on instructions of ................................... (insurance company):-
MCOP Number On the file of (Claims Tribunal Name), Place Date of award Amount Deposited, Income Tax Deduction at Source, if any Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. Insurance company of offending vehicle, on deposit, shall also send a copy of the payment advice in above format to this Tribunal and serve a copy of the same on the claimants or their counsel as the case may be.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP).
35. This court is in receipt of the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA 04:44:13 +0530 Date: 2024.09.28 MACT No.: 256/17 Paul Mathew v. Rajiv Anand & ors. P.No. 30 of 35 ss :31 : no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors whereby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has formulated MACAD(Motor Accident Claims Annunity Deposit Scheme) which has been made effective from 01.01.2019. The said orders dated 07.12.2018 also mentions that 21 banks including State Bank of India is one of such banks which are to adhere to MACAD. The State Bank of India, Saket Courts, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Apportionment:-
36. Another issue which is to be decided is out of such Award amount, how much is to be released at present and how much is to kept in the form of FDR for future financial used of the petitioner.
37. At this stage, it is relevant to the refer to the judgment of A. V. Padma & Ors. Vs., R. Venugopal & Ors. (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 378:
"......In the case of Susamma Thomas (supra), this Court issued certain guidelines in order to "safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries due to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation".
Even as per the guidelines issued by this Court Court, long term fixed deposit of amount of compensation is mandatory only in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows. In the case of illiterate claimants, the Tribunal is allowed to consider the request for lumpsum payment for effecting purchase of any movable property such as agricultural implements, rickshaws etc. to earn a Digitally signed CHARU by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.09.28 04:44:23 +0530 MACT No.: 256/17 Paul Mathew v. Rajiv Anand & ors. P.No. 31 of 35 ss :32 : living. However, in such cases, the Tribunal shall make sure that the amount is actually spent for the purpose and the demand is not a ruse to withdraw money. In the case of semi-illiterate claimants, the Tribunal should ordinarily invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. But if the Tribunal is satisfied for reasons to be stated in writing that the whole or part of the amount is required for expanding an existing business or for purchasing some property for earning a livelihood, the Tribunal can release the whole or part of the amount of compensation to the claimant provided the Tribunal will ensure that the amount is invested for the purpose for which it is demanded and paid. In the case of literate persons, it is not mandatory to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit.
The expression used in guideline No. (iv) issued by this Court is that in the case of literate persons also the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i), whereas in the guideline Nos.
(i), (ii), (iii) and (v), the expression used is that the Tribunal should. Moreover, in the case of literate persons, the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i) only if, having regard to the age, fiscal background and strata of the society to which the claimant belongs and such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks that in the larger interest of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded, it is necessary to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit.
Thus, sufficient discretion has been given to the Tribunal not to insist on investment of the compensation amount in long term fixed deposit and to release even the whole amount in the case of literate persons. However, the Tribunals are often taking a very rigid stand and are mechanically Digitally signed CHARU by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.09.28 04:44:29 +0530 MACT No.: 256/17 Paul Mathew v. Rajiv Anand & ors. P.No. 32 of 35 ss :33 : ordering in almost all cases that the amount of compensation shall be invested in long term fixed deposit. They are taking such a rigid and mechanical approach without understanding and appreciating the distinction drawn by this Court in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows and in the case of semiliterate and literate persons. It needs to be clarified that the above guidelines were issued by this Court only to safeguard the interests of the claimants, particularly the minors, illiterates and others whose amounts are sought to be withdrawn on some fictitious grounds. The guidelines were not to be understood to mean that the Tribunals were to take a rigid stand while considering an application seeking release of the money.
The guidelines cast a responsibility on the Tribunals to pass appropriate orders after examining each case on its own merits. However, it is seen that even in cases when there is no possibility or chance of the feed being frittered away by the beneficiary owing to ignorance, illiteracy or susceptibility to exploitation, investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit is directed by the Tribunals as a matter of course and in a routine manner, ignoring the object and the spirit of the guidelines issued by this Court and the genuine requirements of the claimants. Even in the case of literate persons, the Tribunals are automatically ordering investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit without recording that having regard to the age or fiscal background or the strata of the society to which the claimant belongs or such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks it necessary to direct such investment in the larger interests of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded to him.
The Tribunals very often dispose of the claimant's application for withdrawal of the amount of CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU GUPTA Date: 2024.09.28 GUPTA 04:44:36 +0530 MACT No.: 256/17 Paul Mathew v. Rajiv Anand & ors. P.No. 33 of 35 ss :34 : compensation in a mechanical manner and without proper application of mind. This has resulted in serious injustice and hardship to the claimants. The Tribunals appear to think that in view of the guidelines issued by this Court, in every case the amount of compensation should be invested in long term fixed deposit and under no circumstances the Tribunal can release the entire amount of compensation to the claimant even if it is required by him. Hence a change of attitude and approach on the part of the Tribunals is necessary in the interest of justice..."
38. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and the abovesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Supreme Court, Rs.4,85,799/-, entire amount be released to petitioner/injured alongwith simple interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of petition till its actual realization, in his bank account near his place of residence.
39. In accordance with the orders dated 08.02.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 in Rajesh Tyagi and others Vs. Jaibir Singh and others. The Nodal Officer of the bank shall ensure the disbursement of the award amount within three weeks of the receipt of the e-mail as mentioned in the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Digitally signed CHARU by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA 04:44:43 Date: 2024.09.28 +0530 FORM -VI-B SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
MACT No.: 256/17 Paul Mathew v. Rajiv Anand & ors. P.No. 34 of 35 ss :35 : 1 Date of accident 16.12.2013 2 Name of injured Paul Mathew 3 Age of the injured 59 years 4 Occupation of the Office Assistant injured 5 Income of the injured Rs.10,686/-per month.
6 Nature injury Injury 7 Medical treatment Kailash Hospital, Greator Noida taken by the injured: and Lok Nayak Hospital 8 Period of 6 days Hospitalization 9 Whether any Nil permanent disability?
40. List for compliance on 28.10.2024.
Digitally signedAnnounced in open Court CHARU by CHARU GUPTA On 28th September, 2024 GUPTA Date: 2024.09.28 04:44:52 +0530 (Charu Gupta) PO-MACT-01(South-East) Saket Court/ New Delhi MACT No.: 256/17 Paul Mathew v. Rajiv Anand & ors. P.No. 35 of 35 ss