Delhi District Court
Ayush (Dar) vs . Mohul Sindhi & Ors. on 6 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ATUL KUMAR GARG :
PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT : SOUTH DISTT. :
SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
Petition No. : 75545/16
AYUSH (DAR) VS. MOHUL SINDHI & ORS.
(FIR NO.294/15, PS FATEHPUR BERI, U/S 279/338 IPC)
Ayush
S/o Sh. Rajesh Shekhar
R/o D-9/12, 2nd Floor,
Exclusive Tower, DLF,
Phase-V, Gurgaon,
Haryana ......injured
...... Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Mohul Sindhi
S/o Sh. Jeetender Sindhi ..... (Driver)
2. Sh. Jeetender Sindhi
S/o Sh. Surinder Sindhi
Both R/o A-121, Balveder Tower
Gurgaon, Haryna ..... (Owner)
3. IFCCO Tokio General Insurance Comp.Ltd
.....(Insurance
Company
......Respondents
Date of Institution : 07.08.2015
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 06.04.2022
Date of pronouncement : 06.04.2022
Petition No. : 75545/16
Ayush Vs. Mohul Sindhi and ors Page No.1/21
JUDGMENT:
1. This order shall dispose off the Detailed Accident Report hereinafter called a DAR filed by the police in respect of the injury sustained to Ayush in a road accident which occurred on 23.04.2015.
2. The fact of this case does not need any big canvass:-
"On 23.04.2015, at about 2.15am, in front of Air Force Canteen, MG Road, Arjangarh, New Delhi, petitioner alongwith respondent no.1 were going from Delhi to Gurgaon from MG Road in vehicle No.HR 26 Z 8514 and respondent no.1` while driving in rash and negligent manner hit against the railing. Due to the impact, petitioner received serious multiple injuries and has suffered 75% Locomotor disability.
3. WS was filed on behalf of all the respondents. Respondent no.1 and 2 have submitted that the vehicle is duly insured with respondent no.3 and denied the accident in toto. WS was also filed on behalf of respondent no.3 denying its liability.
4. After completion of the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 01.08.2016, following issues have been framed:-
ISSUES:-
1. Whether injured Sh.Ayush sustained injuries in a road accident on 02.05.2015 at about 2.15am, at in front of Air Force Canteen MG Road, Arjangarh, Near Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing Petition No. : 75545/16 Ayush Vs. Mohul Sindhi and ors Page No.2/21 no. HR 26 Z 8514 being driven by the respondent no. 1 (Sh. Mohul Sindhi), owned by respondent no.2 (Jeetender Sindhi) and insured with respondent no.3 (IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company)? .... OPP.
2. To what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled and from whom?.... OPP.
3. Relief.
(In issue no.1 the date of accident has been inadvertantly mentioned as 02.05.2015 instead of 23.04.2015.)
5. In order to prove his contention petitioner had examined four witnesses, Chetna Shambu, Dr. Vijay Sharma, Ms Maria Rajesh, Dr. Nihar Ranjan Dash and SI Surendra Singh. In rebuttal, respondent no.1 Mohul Sindhi/driver of car had examined himself as RW1.
6. I have heard the arguments, perused the record and analyzed the witnesses examined by both the parties and my issue-wise findings are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1
7. Needless to say that for making someone entitled U/s 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle needs to be proved and to prove the same the Tribunal need not go into the technicalities because strict rules of procedure and evidence are not followed. Basically, in road accident cases, Tribunal has simply to quantify the compensation which is just, rational and Petition No. : 75545/16 Ayush Vs. Mohul Sindhi and ors Page No.3/21 reasonable on the basis of enquiry. It is an admitted legal position that the negligence on part of the driver with respect to use of the vehicle needs to be established and the same is to be established on the principle of preponderance of probabilities as decided in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Harsh Mishra & Ors. III (2015) ACC 435 Delhi.
8. PW1 Chetna Shambu is the mother of the injured / petitioner Ayush, who has deposed on behalf of injured as injured is not in a condition to depose before the court. She has filed her affidavit stating the facts mentioned in the FIR regarding the accident caused by the respondent no.1. She has deposed further that after the accident respondent no.1 fled away from the spot and injured was removed to Medanta hospital by one Ms. Neha, where he was given instantaneous treatment and also called her. The petitioner has sustained life threatening injuries and was initially managed at Medanta Hospital. However, he could not recover his consciousness and was admitted in AIIMS Trauma Centre where multiple serial debridements were done for the sacral wound and victim was discharged in bed ridden stage on 03.08.2015 with medical report stating that the prognosis of patient is dismal with probability of him standing and walking are quite remote in view of the extensive bony and pelvis Estabolum. The treatment of victim has been ongoing at various specialized hospital yet no improvement has been shown. As per the report of doctors, victim will not be able to lead a normal life in the future due to multiple disabilities caused to his vital and essential body organs and may never be able to stand on his feet again. Medical documents, including discharge summary of hospitals Petition No. : 75545/16 Ayush Vs. Mohul Sindhi and ors Page No.4/21 alongwith medical bills have been filed. She has deposed further that injured was 23 years old at the time of accident and was pursuing graduation and on account of his remarkable academics and intelligence he has cleared his college placement interview and received letter of Intent dated 01.02.2015 for the post of Executive operations from Embassy Services Pvt. For a total salary of Rs.9,00,000/- per annum. She has claimed compensation of Rs.2,50,00,000/-. She has filed power of attorney Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the documents Ex.PW1/B to Ex.PW1/G including medical bills, educational certificates of injured, copy of the Letter of Intent, Copy of decree of divorce, copy of monthly expenses of the injured and copy of discharge summary.
During her cross examination she has deposed that she is not an eye witness of the alleged accident and her son does not have any medical policy and her son is still under treatment. She has denied that the bills filed by her are false and fabricated.
9. PW2/Dr. Vijay Sharma has deposed on the basis of letter dated 28.09.2015 issued by him, as per which injured has sustained multiple injuries on 23.04.2015. He was initially managed at Medanta Hospital where he underwent operations in the form of colostomy, scrotal exploration and debridement of perinel wound. The patient was then shifted to AIIMS Trauma Centre under his care on 29.04.2015; multiple operations were done for sacral wounds and open reduction and internal fixation was done for the left acetabulam on 16.06.2015. Patient was discharged in bed ridden state on 03.08.2015. Patient had colostomy for which GI Surgery referral was done and patient was Petition No. : 75545/16 Ayush Vs. Mohul Sindhi and ors Page No.5/21 advised to follow with GI Surgeon for reversal of colostomy procedure.
During cross examination he deposed that he is not aware whether any GI Surgery was performed on Ayush or not.
10. PW3/Ms. Maria Rajesh, Chief Human Resource Officer, Embassy Group has proved the Intent Letter dated 01.02.2015 Ex.PW3/A issued to the injured Ayush and further that the income as stated in the intent letter was assured to be given to the petitioner if he would have joined their company after completing the graduation.
During cross examination in an answer to a question, she has deposed that the intent letter does not have any value at this point of time as petitioner has not joined them.
11. PW4/Dr. Nihar Ranjan Dash, Professor, Gastrointestinal Surgery and Liver Transplant, AIIMS has deposed that the petitioner alongwith his mother has visited him, and he suggested a few institute through email Ex.PW4/A as the petitioner could not be treated at AIIMS.
12. PW4 (wrongly mentioned as PW4 instead of PW5) SI Surendra Singh is the IO of the case. He had filed the DAR in the court including the FIR No.294/15, U/Sec.279/337 IPC, MLC of injured Ayush and of Mohul Sindhi, mechanical inspection report.
During cross examination, he has deposed that he did not find either injured or the alleged driver at the spot of accident. The FIR was registered after about 10 days. No independent witness was found at the spot of accident. He deposed further that he did not find Petition No. : 75545/16 Ayush Vs. Mohul Sindhi and ors Page No.6/21 any possibility of involvement of another vehicle which could have caused the accident at another place and hence no investigation was conducted regarding the same.
13. Respondent No.1 Mohul Sindhi examined himself in support of his defence. In his affidavit he has submitted that the vehicle bearing no.HR 26 Z 8514 was insured with IFFCO Tokio General Insurance company and was having valid insurance. He has denied the involvement of said vehicle in any accident and that the claimant has suffered any injury due to any alleged accident having been allegedly caused by the respondents. FIR is an abuse of law and has relied upon the document Ex.R1W1/1 insurance policy and Ex.R1W1/2 DAR. During his cross examination, he denied that he was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident or was present at Medanta hospital when Ayush was taken there. He denied that being friend of petitioner he has collided with the petitioner to claim compensation.
14. Respondent No.2 and 3 have not examined any witness in their defence.
15. I have heard the arguments at bar and perused the record and analyzed the evidence brought and examined by the respective parties and my issuewise findings are as under:-
16. Respondent No. 1 and 2 have argued that the vehicle bearing no.HR 26 Z 8514 was insured with IFFCO Tokio General Insurance company and was having valid insurance. The respondent Petition No. : 75545/16 Ayush Vs. Mohul Sindhi and ors Page No.7/21 no.1 was having valid driving license. They have denied that the said vehicle is involved in any accident and denied that the claimant has suffered any injury due to any alleged accident having been allegedly caused by the respondents.
17. Respondent No.3 has argued that the petitioner has neither led his own evidence nor examined any independent eye witness to prove the negligence of the driver of the alleged offending vehicle. Even Respondent no.1 the driver of the alleged offending vehicle has also denied the accident in toto. The FIR in this case was registered on 02.05.2015 while the accident was occurred on 23.04.2015 thus it is an afterthought. Petitioner was a student at the time of alleged accident hence there is no question of having loss of income.
18. It is further argued that the medical bills are not supported by any medical prescriptions and there is duplication of medical bills of Rs.22,26,005/-, further, the medical bills of Rs.8,25,000/- are liable to be disregarded as there is no hospital by the name of Aastha Hospital in Gurgaon. It is submitted that on verification, out of medical bills of Rs.46,83,453/-, the medical bills of Rs.24,57,448/- were verified and Rs.22,26,005/- were duplicate bills. In all the respondent has admitted the genuineness of medical bills of Rs.30,64,705.69/-.
19. It is further argued that there are discrepancies in the testimony of PW4 /IO as he did not find either the alleged injured or driver of the offending vehicle at the spot, no eye witness was found at the spot, MLC of the injured as well as the driver of the offending Petition No. : 75545/16 Ayush Vs. Mohul Sindhi and ors Page No.8/21 vehicle shows that they were brought to the hospital by different persons; further no investigation was carried out regarding possibility of any other vehicle.
20. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the accident took place due to the sole negligence of the respondent no.1. If the petitioner cannot produce any eye witness or himself did not appear before the court, then it does not mean that the accident has not been taken place. The delay in lodging the FIR was due to the fact that the injured was not in a condition to depose. Petitioner was pursuing graduation at the time of accident and was a brilliant student and was offered letter of intent. Hence respondents are liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner for the injuries sustained to the injured due to the use of motor vehicle.
21. In the present case, the investigating officer alongwith the DAR has filed FIR, Charge sheet, site plan, MLC etc. Perusal of FIR shows that the case was registered on the statement of injured. No other version of accident has come on record except the one as narrated by the injured.
22. The first leg of the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent no.3 is that the injured has not been examined himself and in the absence of examination of injured, compensation could not be granted but that argument does not have any basis because of the medical condition of the injured as deposed by PW1 that he is not able to even stand on his own leg therefore, there is no question arises of appearing him in the witness box.
Petition No. : 75545/16 Ayush Vs. Mohul Sindhi and ors Page No.9/21
23. The next leg of the argument of the respondent is that the FIR has been delayed but seeing the condition of the injured the delay in registration of FIR is obvious in view of the condition of injured. The information had been received on the same very day and the injured was admitted in the hospital, thus this argument is not tenable.
24. Respondent's counsel has taken another plea stating that there are discrepancies in the statement of the IO and that IO had not investigated the involvement of other vehicle but that argument has taken only for the sake of argument otherwise there is no basis of advancing such arguments.
25. Considering the testimony of PW1 Chetna Shambu, mother of injured Ayush, coupled with certified copies of criminal record which include FIR, chargesheet etc. filed against respondent no.1, it is established that injured Ayush sustained injuries in a road accident on 23.04.2015, at about 2.15am, in front of Air Force Canteen, MG Road, Arjangarh, New Delhi, due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing number HR 26 Z 8514 being driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3 (IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited), as a result thereof, the claimant suffered 75% Locomotor disability. This issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
I S S U E No. 226. The petitioner has claimed compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by the injured Ayush. First of all the court has to Petition No. : 75545/16 Ayush Vs. Mohul Sindhi and ors Page No.10/21 decide as to whom the liability to pay the compensation is fastened.
27 It is evident from the record that it was the offending vehicle which hit against the railing resulting into grievous injuries to the injured Ayush. It is a matter of fact that the offending vehicle was having a valid insurance policy on the date of accident. Hence, it is respondent no.3 who being the insurer of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the compensation as the offending vehicle was having a valid insurance and the respondent no.3 had entered into contract of insurance with the owner of the vehicle.
28. Petitioner is entitled to damages for the injury suffered to him arising out of use of Motor Vehicle under both non-pecuniary and pecuniary heads.
COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF THE INJURED AYUSH MEDICAL EXPENSES :
29. In the present case, the injured Ayush had sustained life threatening poly trauma with several laceration, head injury and pelvic fracture, spinal cord injury, multiple operations were done for sacral wounds and open reduction and internal fixation. Patient was discharged in bed ridden state on 03.08.2015. Patient had colostomy for which GI Surgery referral was done. He is having 75% Locomotor disability. Medical bills of Rs.74,06,557.73 are filed on record on his behalf including future expense of Rs.16,03,632/- w.e.f. 2015 to 2018. Said bills were verified by the insurance company, out of medical bills of Rs.46,83,453/-, the medical bills of Rs.24,57,448/- were verified and Rs.22,26,005/- were found to be duplicate bills. In Petition No. : 75545/16 Ayush Vs. Mohul Sindhi and ors Page No.11/21 all, Medical bills of Rs.30,64,705.69/- were found to be genuine. I therefore, award an amount of Rs. 30,64,706/- to the injured towards the medical expenses.
PAIN AND SUFFERINGS AND ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :
30. Looking into the injuries and treatment of the injured, and the fact that injured has still not recovered due to the injuries sustained in the accident and gone through, I award Rs. 5,00,000/- to the injured/petitioner Ayush towards his pain and sufferings and enjoyment of life.
SPECIAL DIET, CONVEYANCE AND ATTENDANT CHARGES :
31. In the present case the injuries on the person of the injured Ayush were such that he must have taken special diet for his recovery. He must have spent some amount on attendant. Therefore, looking into all the facts, I award Rs. 3,00,000/- to the petitioner/ injured Ayush towards his special diet, conveyance and attendant charges.
FUTURE LOSS OF INCOME
32. The petitioner/ injured Ayush was pursuing graduation and has remarkable academics and intelligence. He has cleared his college placement interview and received letter of Intent dated 01.02.2015 for the post of Executive operations from Embassy Services Pvt. For a total salary of Rs.9,00,000/- per annum, though disputed by the respondents. However, had the injured not met with the accident, he must have been joined the aforesaid post. Therefore, this court had Petition No. : 75545/16 Ayush Vs. Mohul Sindhi and ors Page No.12/21 taken the amount of Rs.9,00,000/- per annum as salary for the assessment of the future loss. Here in the present case, petitioner is having 75% Locomotor disability. This disability would definitely affect his future working/prospects as well as his day to day movement. As a matter of rule the half of the functional disability of anyone of the limb has to be taken off for the purpose of calculation of future prospects. The injuries on the petitioner are that he will require somebody's help even for his daily routine work. Hence disability has to be taken as 100% i.e. 75% as a whole. As per the MLC the age of petitioner is mentioned as 23 years which was not disputed by the insurance company, petitioner was 23 years old at the time of accident i.e. on 23.04.2015. Taking a multiplier of '18', and the monthly income of petitioner as Rs.75,000/- per month, the future loss of income comes to Rs.1,05,000/- (Rs.75,000/- + Rs.75,000/- x 40/100) X 18 x 12 x 75% = Rs.1,70,10,000/-. I therefore, award Rs.1,70,10,000/- to the petitioner towards loss of future Income.
Loss of Amenities and Marriage prospects :
33. Due to the permanent disability, the petitioner would not be able to participate in the normal activities of his daily life to pursue his talents, recreation interest, hobbies and evocations. The injuries would also have an effect his social and marriage prospect. I therefore, award Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner towards loss of amenities and marriage prospect.
The total compensation in favour of the petitioner Ayush is assessed as under :
Petition No. : 75545/16 Ayush Vs. Mohul Sindhi and ors Page No.13/21 Medical Expenses : Rs. 30,64,706/-
Pain and Suffering and Enjoyment
of life : Rs. 5,00,000/-
Special diet, Conveyance
& Attendant : Rs. 3,00,000/-
Loss of amenities and
marriage prospects : Rs. 5,00,000/-
Loss of future income : Rs. 1,70,10,000/-
================
TOTAL : Rs. 2,13,74,706/-
================
LIAB I LI TY
34. As regards the liability, the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1, therefore primary liability to compensate the petitioner is that of respondent no.1. As the offending vehicle was owned by respondent no.2, so, it is vicariously liable to compensate the petitioner. It is an admitted position on record that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no. 3, therefore, respondent no.3 becomes contractually liable to pay the compensation towards the liability of the insured.
35. Issue no. 2 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
Petition No. : 75545/16 Ayush Vs. Mohul Sindhi and ors Page No.14/21 R E LI EF 36 In view of my findings on the issues, I award a sum of Rs. 2,13,74,706/- (Rupees Two Crores, Thirteen Lakhs, Seventy Four Thousand, Seven Hundred and Six only) to the petitioner Ayush as compensation along-with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization.
Out of the awarded amount, an amount of Rs. 13,74,706/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs, Seventy Four Thousand, Seven Hundred and Six only) be released to the petitioner. Since the petitioner has suffered 75% locomotor disability and as per the report of doctors, he will not be able to lead a normal life in the future due to multiple disabilities caused to his vital and essential body organs. Hence in view of the same, the awarded amount be deposited in the account of his mother being his natural guardian to take care of the injured/petitioner.
Out of the awarded amount, an amount of Rs.2,00,000,00/- (Rupees Two Crores only) is directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit in the account of mother of petitioner in the following phased manner :
• Rs.10,00,000/- for a period of 01 year. • Rs.10,00,000/- for a period of 02 year. • Rs.10,00,000/- for a period of 03 year. • Rs.10,00,000/- for a period of 04 year • Rs.10,00,000/- for a period of 05 year. • Rs.10,00,000/- for a period of 06 year • Rs.10,00,000/- for a period of 07 year. • Rs.10,00,000/- for a period of 08 year. • Rs.10,00,000/- for a period of 09 year. • Rs.10,00,000/- for a period of 10 year. • Rs.10,00,000/- for a period of 11 years. • Rs.10,00,000/- for a period of 12 years.
Petition No. : 75545/16
Ayush Vs. Mohul Sindhi and ors Page No.15/21
• Rs.10,00,000/- for a period of 13 year.
• Rs.10,00,000/- for a period of 14 years.
• Rs.10,00,000/- for a period of 15 years.
• Rs.10,00,000/- for a period of 16 years.
• Rs.10,00,000/- for a period of 17 year.
• Rs.10,00,000/- for a period of 18 years.
• Rs.10,00,000/- for a period of 19 years.
• Rs.10,00,000/- for a period of 20 years.
Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
In consonance to the idea conceptualized and formulated in various land mark judgments of our own Hon'ble High Court, by which part of the awarded amount is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit / savings account by Hon'ble High Court, respondent no.3 is directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the petitioners with State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, against account of petitioners within a period of 30 days from today, failing which the respondent no.3 shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
The respondent no.3 is directed to credit the amount directly to the MACT account of State Bank of India, District Court, Saket branch. Details of the bank i.e. IFSC code etc. have been provided to the ld. counsel for the insurance company.
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 FUND PARKING A/c 35195787436 IFS Code Petition No. : 75545/16 Ayush Vs. Mohul Sindhi and ors Page No.16/21 SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir alongwith calculation of interest and to the Counsel for the petitioners.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP) Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the State Bank of India, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, is directed to keep the awarded amount in the "fixed deposit / saving account'' in the following manner:-
The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the petitioners / claimants by Automatic Credit of interest of their saving bank accounts with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to claimants / petitioners after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimants / petitioners to facilitate identity. No cheque book be issued to claimants / petitioners without the permission of this Court.
The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the claimants/petitioners alongwith the photocopy of the FDRs.
The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to claimants / petitioners at the end of the fixed deposit period.
No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court.
Petition No. : 75545/16 Ayush Vs. Mohul Sindhi and ors Page No.17/21 Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court.
On the request of claimants / petitioners, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience.
Claimants / petitioners shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, New Delhi.
The bank is also directed to get the nomination form filled by the claimants at the time of preparation of FDRs.
The bank is also directed to keep the money received from the respondent no.3 in an FDR in the name of the bank till the FDRs are prepared in the name of the claimants, so that the benefit of better interest may be given to the claimants for the said period.
The Manager, State Bank of India, District Court Saket branch is directed not to release any amount to the petitioners from this branch, unless ordered by the Tribunal in terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 and CM Applications No. 32859/2017, 41125-41127/2017 in Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. dated 09.03.2018. It is made clear that the amount including the maturity amount of the FDRs shall be released to the petitioner through RTGS/ NEFT directly in the personal bank account of the petitioners of the bank nearest to their place of residence.
DIRECTIONS FOR THE RESPONDENTS Petition No. : 75545/16 Ayush Vs. Mohul Sindhi and ors Page No.18/21 The respondent no. 3 is directed to file compliance report of its having deposited the awarded amount with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this Tribunal within a period of 30 days from today. The respondent no.3 shall intimate the claimants / petitioners about their having deposited the amount in favor of the petitioners in terms of the award, at the address of the petitioners mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate them to withdraw the same. Copy of this award / judgment be given to the parties for compliance. The case is now fixed for compliance by the 06.05.2022.
FORM IV-B
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT
IN INJURY CASE OF AYUSH
Date of accident : : 23.04.2015
Name of the injured : : Ayush
Age of the injured: : 23 years
Occupation of the injured : Student
Income of the injured : Rs.9,00,000/- per
annum
(As per letter of intent)
Nature of injury : Grievous
Medical treatment
taken by the injured : Yes
Whether any disability: 75% Locomotor
disability
Petition No. : 75545/16
Ayush Vs. Mohul Sindhi and ors Page No.19/21
Computation of Compensation
S. Heads Awarded by the
No. Claims Tribunal
1 Pecuniary Loss :
i Expenditure on treatment Rs.30,64,706/-
ii Expenditure on special diet, conveyance and Rs. 3,00,000/-
attendant
iii Loss of Income Rs.
iv Loss of Study Rs.
v Any other loss which may require any special
treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life.
2 Non-Pecuniary Loss :
i Compensation for mental and physical shock ii Pain and suffering & enjoyment of life Rs. 5,00,000/-
iii Loss of amenities and marriage prospects Rs.5,00,000/-
iv Dis-figuration and marriage prospects -----
v Loss of amenities Rs.
vi Compensation on account of permanent -----
disability
3 Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity :
Petition No. : 75545/16
Ayush Vs. Mohul Sindhi and ors Page No.20/21
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and nature
of disability as permanent or temporary
(iii) Future Loss of Income Rs. 1,70,10,000/-
4 TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 2,13,74,706/-
5 INTEREST AWARDED 6%
6 Total amount of interest Rs. 85,48,800/-
7 Total amount including interest Rs. 2,99,23,506/-
8 Award amount released Rs. 99,23,506/-
9 Award amount kept in FDRs Rs. 2,00,00,000/-
10 Mode of disbursement of the award amount Some amount to be
to the claimant(s) released and some
amount to be kept in
the form of FDR
11 Next date for compliance of the award. 06.05.2022
Pronounced in the open Court
on 6th April 2022
(ATUL KUMAR GARG)
Presiding Officer : MACT (South)
Saket Courts : New Delhi
Petition No. : 75545/16
Ayush Vs. Mohul Sindhi and ors Page No.21/21