Delhi District Court
Smt. Raj Bala vs . Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 1 Of 48 on 31 January, 2022
Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 1 of 48
IN THE COURT OF MS. JASJEET KAUR, PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS,
DELHI
New No. 5070216
UNIQUE ID No. : DLNW010010372015
Smt. Raj Bala Sharma W/o Sh. K.N. Sharma,
R/o H.No. BH734, East Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi110088.
........ Petitioner/claimant
Vs.
1. Smt. Komal W/o Sh. Manish Kumar,
R/o H.No. BH635A,
East Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi110088.
......Drivercumowner/R1
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Space No.315, Aggarwal City Mall, Road No.44,
Pitampura, New Delhi.
... Insurance co/R2
Respondents
Other details
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 19.03.2015
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 31.01.2022
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.01.2022
FORM - V
1. COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS
Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 1 of48
Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 2 of 48
TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE
AWARD AS PER FORMAT REFERRED IN THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN FAO 842/2003 RAJESH TYAGI
Vs. JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018.
1. Date of the accident 11.10.2014
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the 19.03.2015
investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the 19.03.2015
investigating officer to the insurance company.
4. Date of filing of Report under section 173 Cr.P.C. Not available on
before the Metropolitan Magistrate record.
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information 19.03.2015
Report (DAR) by the investigating Officer before
Claims Tribunal
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance 19.03.2015
Company
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). 19.03.2015
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? Yes
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed No
later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the documents Yes
filed with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the No
part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether
any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by 19.03.2015
the insurance Company.
13. Name, address and contact number of the Sh. V.K. Gupta, Ld.
Designated Officer of the Insurance Company. Counsel for the
insurance co.
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Insurance No
Company submitted his report within 30 days of
Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 2 of48
Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 3 of 48
the DAR? (Clause 22)
15. Whether the insurance company admitted the No.
liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of
the insurance company fairly computed the
compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the No
part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether any action/direction
warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant(s) to the offer of No
the Insurance Company .
18. Date of the Award 31.01.2022
19. Whether the award was passed with the consent No
of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes
saving bank account(s) near their place of
residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed 04.04.2019
to open saving bank account (s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN Card and Aadhar
Card and the direction to the bank not issue any
cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and
make an endorsement to this effect on the
passbook(s).
22. Date on which the claimant (s) produced the 01.06.2019
passbook of their saving bank account near the
place of their residence along with the
endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned above
Claimant(s)
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Smt. Raj Bala Sharma
claimant(s) and the address of the bank with savings bank a/c
IFSC Code No.053100360120015
, with Corporation
Bank, Shalimar Bagh,
BlockAM, near DAV
School, Delhi.
Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 3 of48
Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 4 of 48
IFSC :
CORP0000531
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank account(s) Yes
is near his place of residence?
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the Yes
time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their
financial condition.
27. Account number/CIF No, MICR number, IFSC 86143654123,
Code, name and branch of the bank of the Claims 110002427,
Tribunal in which the award amount is to be SBIN0010323, SBI,
deposited/transferred. (in terms of order dated Rohini Courts, Delhi
18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in FAO
842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh.
JUDGMENT
1. The present claim proceedings have emanated from a Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred to as DAR) filed on 19.03.2015 with reference to FIR No.1121/14 registered at PS Shalimar Bagh in respect of commission of offences of causing hurt by a rash and negligent driving of a motor vehicle(scooty) without wearing a helmet on a public road punishable U/s 279/337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and Sections 129/177 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereafter referred to as M.V. Act) wherein subsequent charge sheet for the alleged commission of offences of causing grievous hurt by rash and negligent driving of a scooty without wearing a helmet as well as without possessing a driving licence for driving a two wheeler issued by a competent authority punishable u/s 279/338 IPC and 129/177 and 3/181 of M.V. Act against one Smt. Komal was also filed in respect of grievous hurt sustained by one Smt. Raj Bala (hereinafter referred to as the injured/ the petitioner/the claimant). The learned Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 4 of48 Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 5 of 48 Predecessor Court had vide order dated 19.03.2015 treated the DAR as petition u/s 166(4) of M.V. Act.
1.1 A perusal of the Court record reveals that subsequently, on 14.05.2015, the petitioner had also filed a separate claim petition under Section 166/140 of M.V. Act which was directed to be clubbed with the DAR vide order dated 14.05.2015.
2. The brief facts of the case as discernible from the DAR, the claim petition and the documents of the petitioner are that on 11.10.2014 at about 8:30 pm, petitioner/injured Smt. Raj Bala was standing at the ramp in front of her residential premises situated at House Number BH734, East Shalimar Bagh, Delhi when suddenly, a red coloured scooty make Activa bearing registration No. DL8SBS0441 (hereinafter referred to as "the offending vehicle") coming from the direction of red light(traffic signal) of St. Rosier Public School, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi being driven on the wrong side of the road in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed by Smt. Komal (hereinafter referred to as the respondent No.R1/R1), had hit against the petitioner, due to which she had fell down and had sustained grievous injuries. It has been mentioned in the petition that the petitioner was removed by her husband to Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi where she was medically examined vide MLC No.601/2014. The petitioner had remained admitted at Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh with effect from 11.10.2014 to 15.10.2014 and had undergone a surgery for implantation of distal locking screw in her right hip for management of fractures sustained by her including displaced interochanteric fracture of proximal shaft of right femur, fracture of right inferior pubic ramus and cortical discontinuity or fracture of right acctabulum.
3. R1/drivercumowner/Smt. Komal has filed her written statement wherein she interalia stated that the allegations of the claimant/injured made in the FIR as Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 5 of48 Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 6 of 48 well as in the statement of the claimant/injured were baseless and false. R1 specifically denied that the case accident had occurred due to her sole negligence and had alleged that the victim herself was negligent, and therefore, R1 was not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant/injured. R1 had further claimed in her written statement that the offending vehicle was duly insured with Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Ltd.(now merged into ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.) under policy No. FTW/524 77802/11/11/07/D11152 having validity period commencing from 06.07.2014 and expiring on 05.07.2015, hence the insurance co. is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant/injured/petitioner.
4. R2/ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. had filed its written statement/reply to the DAR wherein it had been admitted that offending vehicle was insured with it vide policy bearing no.S2477802 for a period from 06.07.2014 to 05.07.2015 in the name of R1, and therefore, the insurance policy of the offending vehicle was live and valid as on the date of occurrence of the case accident, that is, 11.10.2014. However, R2 had denied his liability to pay any compensation to the victim on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle, that is, R1 Komal was not holding a valid driving licence issued by the competent authority making her eligible for driving a two wheeled motor vehicle on a public road and in this respect, she was also chargesheeted by the police for the commission of offences punishable U/s 3/181 of M.V. Act. It had been further claimed in the defence of R2 that R1 had intentionally failed to contest the claim in collusion with the petitioner.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by this court vide order dated 22.01.2016:
(1) Whether on 11.10.2014 at about 8:30 pm in front of H.No. BH734, East Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, one scooty bearing registration No. DL8SBS0441, Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 6 of48 Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 7 of 48 Activa, white, which was being driven rashly and negligently by Smt. Komal and hit Smt. Raj Bala and caused injuries to her? (2). Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(3). Relief.
6. Petitioner/claimant Smt. Rajbala had examined herself as PW1, Dr. Jitender Singh, HOD (Orthopedics), Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi as PW2 and Ms.Anjana Sharma D/o Sh. Raj Kumar Sharma, maidcumfull time attendant as PW3. No other witness has been examined by the petitioner in support of her case.
6.1 A perusal of Court record reveals that R1 had partly examined herself as R1W1 and her further examinationinchief was deferred for want of original documents. Thereafter, she had neither produced the relevant documents nor stepped into the witness box and hence, vide order dated 31.01.2019, the learned Predecessor Court had declined her request for adjournment and had closed her right to lead respondent evidence. No other witness had been examined by the R1 in support of her case.
6.2 A perusal of the Court record further reveals that the insurance co./R2 has examined one Sh. Prakhar Singh, Legal Executive, Bharti AXA GIC Ltd., Mercantile House, KG Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi as R2W1 in support of its case.
7. I have heard the final arguments addressed by Ms. Urmila Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sh. Dev Rishi and Sh. Jitin Sahni, learned counsels for R1 as well as from Sh. V.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the insurance company/respondent no.2. My issuewise findings based on my appreciation of the evidence led by the parties in support of their respective versions of the case are reproduced herein below.
Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 7 of48 Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 8 of 48 8.Issue wise findings: ISSUES No. 1 The onus of proving this issue beyond preponderance of probabilities was upon the petitioner. 8.1 After the framing of issues, opportunities were given to all the parties to
prove their respective versions of the case by leading evidence in support of the same. The petitioner had examined three witnesses in support of her version of the case.
8.2 Petitioner had examined herself as PW1 by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A wherein she had reiterated the facts narrated in the claim petition by stating that on the relevant date, time and place the offending Scooty being driven on the wrong side of the road, in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed had hit against her as a consequence of which she had sustained grievous injuries. She further deposed that after the accident, she had been taken to Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, where she had been medically examined vide MLC No.284/2014 dated 11.10.2014 wherein it had been mentioned that she had sustained grievous injuries in the case accident. She claimed that she had suffered various injuries in the case accident including displaced interochanteric fracture of proximal shaft of right femur, fracture of right inferior pubic ramus and cortical discontinuity or fracture of right acctabulum for treatment of which, she had remained admitted at Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh with effect from 11.10.2014 to 15.10.2014 and had undergone a surgery for implantation of distal locking screw in her right hip. She had further deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit that subsequently, she had been again admitted at Fortis Hospital with effect from 23.02.2015 to 28.02.2015 and had undergone another surgery for removal of implant and fixation with reserve distal femural locking plate and bone grafting. PW1 had claimed in her evidence by way of affidavit that she had Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 8 of48 Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 9 of 48 spent Rs.3,21,495/ on her medical treatment and she had incurred another sum of Rs.2,80,000/ as attendant charges comprising of Rs.20,000/ as monthly payment made to a full time maidcumattendant for a period of fourteen months with effect from October, 2014 to December, 2015 whereas she had spent Rs.20,000/ each as conveyance charges and special diet charges. Besides, PW1 had averred in her evidence by way of affidavit that she had also incurred Rs.1,66,440/ as expenses for purchasing 12 doses of an injection, named, Forteo prescribed by the treating doctors for healing of fractures. She had further averred in her examination in chief that she had to spent another sum of Rs.5,000/ per month for hiring an additional maid for household work which she previously used to do by herself and thus, she had claimed another sum of Rs.70,000/ as compensation towards salary of the additional maid servant. Also, PW1 had sought compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/ towards pain and suffering experienced by her due to injuries sustained in the case accident. She had stated that the accident had occurred solely due to the carelessness and negligence of R1. She had relied upon following documents in support of the averments made in her evidence by way of affidavit: a. Verified copy of her MLC Ex.PW1/1.
b. Her original disability certificate Ex.PW1/2.
c. Verified copies of her Aadhar Card, Ration Card and Passport Ex.PW1/3.
d. Verified copies of medical bills, discharge slip, emergency certificate, Xray report and CT Scan report Ex.PW1/4 (colly).
e. Original slips of payment made to the maid Ex.PW1/5 (colly).
f. Original bills of physiotherapy Ex.PW1/6 (colly).
g. Original bills and prescriptions of injection "Forteo" running into eight pages Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 9 of48 Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 10 of 48 Ex.PW1/7(colly) .
8.3 PW1 was cross examined by Sh. V.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for R2/insurance co. wherein she had expressed her inability to tell the height from the road of the ramp on which she was standing at the time of occurrence of the accident in question. She, however, clarified that the ramp was not parallel to the road and was rather higher to the road. She stated that the offending vehicle had come from her left side and she had not noticed the said vehicle coming towards her before the accident. She further stated that the road towards her left side was clearly visible upto a considerable distance. She deposed that the ramp as well as the road in the front of her house were quite wide. She, however, expressed her inability to tell their exact width. She stated that she was standing on the corner of the ramp at the starting point from her house. She further stated that the said ramp was being used by them for parking their vehicles including cars. She deposed that there was no other vehicle on the road at the time of occurrence of the case accident. She further deposed that the front portion of the offending white coloured Activa scooter had struck against her right hip portion. She stated that she had noticed the number of the offending vehicle as DL0441 and the said scooter was being driven by R1 whose son aged about 56 years was standing in front of R1 on the scooter. She further deposed that the scooter had not fell down on the road after the collision, however, the son of R1 had fell down on the road. She stated that at the time of occurrence of the case accident her elder son, namely, Devesh Sharma, younger son Dr. Yatish Sharma and her other family members were present at their residence. She voluntarily stated that her son Devesh Sharma, who was present on the roof of their house, had also witnessed the case accident. She deposed that the offending vehicle was seized at the spot. She further stated that the vehicle was not taken inside their house through the ramp. She denied the Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 10 of48 Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 11 of 48 suggestion that no such accident had been caused by the offending vehicle or that the offending vehicle had been falsely implicated in case accident. She clarified that there were no stairs on the said ramp. She stated that she was generally required to walk 2025 steps to cross the said ramp. She denied the suggestion that she had herself fell down while descending down the ramp or that she was not standing on the ramp at the relevant time. 8.4 PW1 Smt. Raj Bala further deposed that she was 68 years of age and her family comprised of her two married sons including Dr. Yatish Sharma, his wife, their children, namely, Ashmita, aged about 17 years, Arnav Vats, aged about 11 years and Ansh Vats, aged about 8 years who were all residing at the above mentioned address. She further stated that both of her sons and their wives were working persons. She clarified that the wife of Dr. Yatish Sharma was working as a doctor at MAX Hospital whereas the wife of her son Devesh Sharma was working as a Professor in Delhi University. She stated that her sons and daughters used to generally leave their home for going to work at about 9.00 or 10.00 a.m. in the morning and they used to return by evening. She further stated that prior to the case accident there were two part time maid servants employed in their house for doing the work of cleaning and cooking respectively. However, after having met with the case accident, she had engaged another full time maid servant, namely, Anjana Sharma, who belonged to her native village, to look after her. She deposed that Anjana used to reside in their house for 24 hours and the duties of said Anjana Sharma were to help her in taking bath and eating as well as in attending to her natural calls on the bed. She stated that Anjana was not trained medical attendant, however, Anjana used to give her medicines as instructed. She further deposed that Anjana was probably a matriculate, however, she was not in possession of any certificate in respect of educational qualification of Anjana. She stated that she knew maid, namely, Ms. Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 11 of48 Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 12 of 48 Anjana Sharma since her childhood. However, she expressed her inability to tell the name of any other employer of Anjana Sharma. She voluntarily stated that Anjana Sharma had been working as a maid in their village Kharad, U.P. She further stated that the receipts of payment made to Anjana Sharma Ex.PW1/5 had been filled by her son Dr. Yatish Sharma. She denied the suggestion that the said receipts were false or that all the fourteen receipts had been filled at the same time mentioning different period(dates). She expressed her inability to produce any document or medical prescription asking her to avail the services of an attendant. She denied the suggestion that she had not engaged any maid servant, named, Ms. Anjana Sharma and that she had prepared false receipts Ex.PW1/5 for the purpose of inflating her claim. She expressed her inability to tell the salary of two part time maid servants hired by her family for cleaning and cooking. She deposed that she did not have any source of income and she did not have any mediclaim policy or facility for reimbursement of her medical treatment expenses at the relevant time. She denied the suggestion that the medical bills and treatment record filed by her on record were false and fabricated and the same did not pertain to the injuries sustained by her in the case accident. She further denied the suggestion that she was not doing any household activities or that she was not doing anything actively due to her old age. She also denied the suggestion that she had not suffered any permanent disability or loss of earning capacity due to the injuries sustained in the case accident. She further stated that she had not engaged any other person to look after her and the two part time maid servants hired by her family for cleaning and cooking were still employed with them as on the date of recording of her deposition in the Court. She deposed that one of the said part time servant hired as a cook used to remain present at their house from 9:00 am to 3:00 pm and thereafter, from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm. She further stated that the other part time Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 12 of48 Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 13 of 48 servant working as a cleaner used to arrive at about 10:30 am and used to remain present at their house till about 2:00 pm and thereafter, the said maid used to come again at their residence for doing cleaning work from 5:30 pm to 6:00 pm. She denied the suggestion that that she had filed false and fabricated documents. She deposed that her physiotherapist used to run his clinic from his residence situated at second house from their residence. She denied the suggestion that she had not incurred any amount on physiotherapy and the physiotherapy bills Ex.PW1/6 relied upon by her were false. 8.5 In her crossexamination by Sh. N.K. Singh, learned counsel for R1, PW1 deposed that her husband had retired from the post of SubDivisional Magistrate, Delhi. She admitted the suggestion that at the relevant time, her son Dr. Yatish Sharma was working as a doctor with Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. She voluntarily stated that she was admitted at Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi as the same was located near her residence. She further stated that the offending vehicle was coming from wrong side of the road. Learned counsel for R1 had adopted the remaining crossexamination of PW1 as conducted on behalf of the insurance co./R2.
8.6 The petitioner had examined Dr. Jitender Singh, HOD (Orthopedics), Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi as PW2, who stated that on 22.08.2016, patient, namely, Smt. Raj Bala Sharma W/o Sh. K.N. Sharma was examined by the disability board of Dr. BSA Hospital, constituted by the competent authority and after her examination, the disability board had issued a disability certificate No.630 dated 22.08.2016 Ex.PW1/2 wherein a finding had been given to the effect that patient Smt. Raj Bala Sharma had sustained 43% permanent disability in relation to her right lower limb with diagnosis of stiffness in right hip. In his cross examination by Sh. V.K. Gupta, learned counsel for insurance co./R2, PW2 deposed that he had never treated patient Raj Bala. He further stated that the Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 13 of48 Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 14 of 48 disability of patient Raj Bala had been assessed on the basis of directions given by the Court as per MLC of Fortis Hospital bearing No.601. He deposed that for the assessment of disability of any patient, the Board generally used to follow the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India with equal right and opportunity endorsement by Government of NCT of Delhi. Learned counsel for R1 had adopted the cross examination of PW2 as conducted on behalf of the insurance co./R2.
8.7 The petitioner had also examined one maidcumfull time attendant Ms. Anjana Sharma as PW3 who deposed by way of affidavit Ex.PW3/A wherein she supported the claim of the petitioner to the effect that she had been hired by the petitioner as a full time maid in the aftermath of having sustained injuries including fracture of right hip in the case accident with effect from 15.10.2014 to 15.12.2015 on a monthly salary of Rs.20,000/. She relied upon the receipts of payment made to her by the petitioner/her employer already exhibited in the statement of PW1 as Ex.PW1/5. She also relied upon a photocopy of her Aadhar Card Ex.PW3/1.
8.8 In her crossexamination by Sh. V.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the insurance co./R2, PW3 stated that she had come to depose before the Tribunal on the asking of Sh. K.N. Sharma, the husband of the petitioner. She stated that earlier, she used to work as a maid servant in her Village Kharad, U.P. She expressed her inability to tell the name of the District in which Village Kharad was situated. She stated that before working with the petitioner as a maid servant, she had only worked only with one person, namely, Kishan whose father's name she could not tell. She also expressed her inability to tell the contact number and address of said Kishan. She deposed that she had been employed as a maid servant for the last 10 years. She, however, expressed her inability to tell the name and address of any other person with whom she had worked as a maid Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 14 of48 Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 15 of 48 servant. She stated that she had studied upto 12th standard. She further stated that she used to reside with the petitioner while working with her and used to remain present with the petitioner at her residence for 24 hours during which her duties were to feed the petitioner, help the petitioner in her natural calls, to give medicines to the petitioner as well as to help her in bathing with warm water and to do exercises etc. She deposed that there were four rooms on ground floor of the house of the petitioner which was a four storeyed building and the family of the petitioner consisted of six members including petitioner, her husband, her daughter in law Ms. Neha Sharma, her sons, namely, Yatish Sharma and Devesh Sharma and her three grand children. She stated that she was not medically trained. However, immediately, thereafter, she again stated that she had taken training from Kalawati Nursing Home at Mujaffar Nagar, U.P. She, however, stated that she was not in possession of any document to establish that she had taken any training. She deposed that she had not paid any income tax till date and she was also not maintaining any bank account. She stated that Neha Sharma and Yatish Sharma were doctors, while Devesh Sharma was businessman and his wife was a lecturer. She further stated that Sh. K.N. Sharma used to remain at home when the sons and daughtersinlaw of the petitioner used to leave for their work. She further stated that the duty hours of Neha Sharma and Yatish Sharma were not certain as sometimes they used to go to the work in the night shift. She stated that Richa Sharma used to leave for work at 8:00 a.m. and she used to generally return home by 6:00 p.m. She deposed that she had worked with the petitioner for fourteen months with effect from 15.10.2014 till 15.12.2015 and she used to receive payment on monthly basis against due receipts. She stated that her husband used to fill the receipts Ex.PW1/5 and she used to sign thereon. She further stated that her husband was not residing with her and her husband used to visit her at the residence of Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 15 of48 Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 16 of 48 the petitioner only to collect the payment. She deposed that her husband was a graduate and her family comprised of her husband and her son. She clarified that her husband was a businessman and was running a kiryana shop, nearby his house. She further stated that her husband and her son were residing at their own house at Village Kharad and they had never resided with her at the relevant time or at any other point of time in Delhi. She deposed that her son had completed his education upto 12 th standard and she herself had never resided in Delhi except during the above mentioned period. She further stated that two other maid servants used to work with her in the house of the petitioner, out of whom one used to work with effect from 8:00 am to 12:00 noon and the other used to work with effect from 9:00 am to 3:00 pm. She denied the suggestion that Ex.PW1/5 (colly) were not filled by her husband but were filled Dr. Yatish Sharma, that is, the son of the petitioner. She stated that the petitioner belonged to her native village and was known to her since childhood. She denied the suggestion that she had never worked as a maid servant with the petitioner and receipts Ex.PW1/5 (colly) were false and fabricated documents. She further denied the suggestion that there was no such person in the name of Kishan with whom she had worked as a maid as deposed by her above. Learned counsel for R1 had adopted the crossexamination of PW3 as conducted on behalf of the insurance co./R2.
8.9 A perusal of the Court record reveals that R1 had partly examined herself as R1W1 by way of affidavit Ex.R1W1/1 and her further examination in chief was deferred on 09.08.2018 for want of original documents. Thereafter, she had neither produced the relevant documents nor stepped into the witness box and hence, vide order dated 31.01.2019, the learned Predecessor Court had declined her request for adjournment and closed her right to lead respondent evidence. No other witness has been examined by the R1 in support of her case.
Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 16 of48
Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 17 of 48
8.10 A perusal of the Court record reveals that R2/insurance co. had examined
one witness, namely, Sh. Prakhar Singh, Legal Executive, Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited, Mercantile House, K.G. Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi as R2W1 who had deposed by way of affidavit Ex.R2W1/A wherein he had reiterated the facts narrated in the written statement of R2 by claiming that although the offending vehicle was insured in favour of R1 as on the date of occurrence of the case accident, however, the R1 was driving the offending vehicle without any valid driving licence at the time of occurrence of the case accident and therefore, the insurance co./R2 was not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner and the compensation, if any, was supposed to be paid by R1. He further deposed that insurance co/R2 had served a notice u/o 12 rule 8 CPC upon R1 through its Advocate Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta. However, the respondent No.1 had neither replied to the said notice nor produced the documents sought by way of the said notice. R2W1 relied upon the following documents in support of the averments made in his evidence by way of affidavit: a. Notice U/o XII Rule 8 CPC, issued by R2 to R1 seeking production of relevant documents including original insurance policy, permit, fitness certificate and registration certificate of the offending vehicle and driving licence of R1 Ex.R2W1/A. b. Postal receipt of dispatch of notice U/o XII Rule 8 CPC to the address of R1 Ex.R2W1/B. c. Certified copy of the insurance policy of the offending vehicle Ex.R2W1/C. 8.11 The petitioner as well as R2 had not availed the opportunity given to them by the Court to cross examine the R2W1.
8.12 No material contradiction or discrepancy has appeared in the cross examination of PW1 to discredit her above said testimony which would show that Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 17 of48 Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 18 of 48 the case accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1 thereby causing injuries on the person of R1. PW1 is a victim in the present case and her testimony is reliable and trustworthy. Besides, the deposition of PW2 Dr. Jitender Singh has corroborated the version of PW1 regarding the nature of injuries sustained by her in the case accident and had also established that she had sustained 43% permanent disability due to injuries sustained in the case accident.
8.13 A perusal of Court record further reveals that the charge sheet was also filed against R1/driver of the offending vehicle for the commission of offences of causing grievous hurt by rash and negligent driving of a scooty without a valid driving licence and without wearing a helmet punishable U/s 279/338 IPC and 3/181 and 129/177 of M.V. Act. The criminal case record can also be relied upon to prove the involvement of the offending vehicle in the case accident and the negligence on the part of R1. In fact, the factum of accident has not been disputed by R1.
8.14 The issue no.1 is only to be proved by claimant beyond preponderance of probabilities as distinguished from beyond reasonable doubt.
8.15 In view of the above detailed facts and circumstances, testimony of PW1 and criminal case record, it has been clearly proved beyond preponderance of probabilities that the case accident was caused at the above said date, time and place and in the manner as alleged due to the rash and negligent driving of R1 who had hit her scooty against the petitioner thereby causing grievous injuries to the petitioner.
Issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents accordingly.
9. Issue No. (2) Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 18 of48 Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 19 of 48 Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
The onus of proving this issue beyond preponderance of probabilities was upon the petitioner.
9.1 In view of my findings in issue no.1 regarding negligence of R1 resulting in the occurrence of the case accident, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to compensation in respect of medical expenses, conveyance expenses, special diet charges, etc. incurred by her. I shall now examine the entire evidence led by parties including the documents of the petitioner for the purpose of arriving at a finding about the quantum of compensation to which the petitioner is entitled.
9.2 Petitioner has filed her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A wherein she has deposed that on 11.10.2014 about about 8:30 pm, while standing at the ramp in front of her residential premises situated at H.No. BH734, East Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, she had been suddenly hit by a white coloured scooty make Activa bearing registration No. DL8SBS0441 coming from the direction of red light(traffic signal) of St. Rosier Public School, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi being driven on the wrong side of the road, in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed by Smt. Komal due to which she had fell down and sustained grievous injuries. She further deposed that after the accident, she had remained admitted in Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi with effect from 11.10.2014 to 15.10.2014 and had undergone a close reduction internal fixation surgery including implantation of distal locking screw in her right hip for management of displaced interochanteric fracture of proximal shaft of right femur, fracture of right inferior pubic ramus and cortical discontinuity or fracture of right acctabulum. She had further deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit that subsequently, she had been again admitted at Fortis Hospital with effect from 23.02.2015 to Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 19 of48 Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 20 of 48 28.02.2015 and had undergone another surgery for removal of implant and fixation with reverse distal femural locking plate and bone grafting. She had proved on record her medical bills as Ex.PW1/2(colly). The deposition of PW1 regarding the factum of negligence of R1 has remained unrebutted and unchallenged as R1 has failed to crossexamine PW1 on the issue of negligence of R1. Besides, the testimony of PW1 regarding the nature of injuries sustained by her has been corroborated through clinching medical evidence in the form of MLC and discharge summaries of PW1 wherein the detailed nature of fractures sustained by the petitioner and the surgeries performed on her right hip for management of the said fracture have been duly mentioned.
Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to following compensation:
10. Medical Expenses 10.1 The petitioner had claimed a sum of Rs.4,50,000/ as compensation towards medical expenses in her claim petition including the charges incurred on treatment and purchase of medical equipment, such as, walker, wheel chair, toilet seat, etc. However, subsequently, in her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A, the petitioner had claimed that she had spent a sum of Rs.3,21,495/ on medical treatment including two surgeries undergone by her for the treatment of injuries sustained in the case accident. Besides, the petitioner had claimed another sum of Rs.1,66,440/ towards cost of Forteo injections prescribed to her for healing of fracture injuries sustained by her in the case accident. Moreover, the petitioner had claimed another sum of RS.18,800/ towards expenses incurred on physiotherapy. Learned counsel for the insurance company/R2 has objected to the grant of medical expenses to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/ to the petitioner on the ground that the son and daughter in law of the petitioner were doctors employed in the same hospital in which the petitioner had been treated and they had misused their positions as employees of Fortis Hospital to inflate Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 20 of48 Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 21 of 48 the medical bills of the petitioner. In this context, a perusal of Court record reveals that the insurance company/R2 has not led any evidence to establish that the medical bills of the petitioner had been inflated by her son and daughter in law in any manner. The insurance company/R2 has neither summoned any witness from Fortis Hospital to challenge the authenticity of medical bills of the petitioner nor examined any other medical professional or doctor to establish that wrong bills had been raised by Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh in respect of surgeries undergone by the petitioner and other treatment administered to her during her admission at the said hospital. Thus, there is no ground to disbelieve the testimony of the petitioner in respect of nature of medical treatment given to her or to suspect the veracity of the medical bills raised by Fortis Hospital, various chemists, pharmacists, physiotherapists, etc. in respect of medicines, medical equipments procured by the petitioner and the physiotherapy sessions etc. taken by her. In such circumstances, the petitioner would be entitled to compensation in respect of all the original medical bills, bills of pharmacists, chemists and physiotherapist filed by her on Court record. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of two final bills in the sum of Rs.3,21,495/ in respect of inpatient treatment and two surgeries undergone by the petitioner at Fortis Hospital with effect from 11.10.2014 to 15.10.2014 and 23.02.2015 to 28.02.2015, the petitioner is also entitled to a sum of Rs.1,66,440/ towards reimbursement of expenses incurred by her for procuring Forteo injections prescribed to her for healing of the fractured bones. Moreover, the petitioner is entitled to another sum of Rs.18,800/ towards as physiotherapy charges incurred by her on physiotherapy sessions taken by her from 07.10.2015 to 31.05.2016 and another sum of Rs.6,607/ incurred by her as miscellaneous medical expenses towards bills of chemists, pharmacists, etc. Thus, the aggregate amount of medical bills placed on court record by the petitioner is Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 21 of48 Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 22 of 48 Rs.5,13,342/. Accordingly, the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.5,13,342/ as compensation under the head of medical expenses.
11. Special Diet and conveyance 11.1 Petitioner as PW1 has deposed by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A wherein she had sought compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/ towards grievous injuries sustained by her, mental pain and agony suffered by her as well as the expenses incurred by her on special diet, conveyance and availing the services of an attendant. She has specifically claimed that she had incurred a sum of Rs.20,000/ each as expenses for procuring special diet and nutritional supplements and on travelling to the hospital from her residence and viceversa during the treatment period.
11.2 The petitioner has, however, not endeavoured to prove the expenses incurred by her on special diet and conveyance by leading any documentary evidence in the form of prescription of special diet issued in her name by any doctor or dietitian as well as by placing on record the transport bills and bills for purchases made by her towards special diet such as nutritional supplements, liquid diets, protein diets, etc. In such circumstances, the requirement of special diet etc. by the petitioner and the expenses incurred by her on the same have to be determined in accordance with the nature of injuries sustained by him. 11.3 In this context, the MLC of the petitioner Ex. PW1/1 prima facie establishes that the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries. Besides, as per the discharge summary Ex.PW1/4(colly) of Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, the petitioner had undergone a close reduction internal fixation surgery including implantation of distal locking screw in her right hip for management of displaced interochanteric fracture of proximal shaft of right femur, fracture of right inferior pubic ramus and cortical discontinuity or fracture of right acctabulum. Besides, as per the second discharge summary of the petitioner Ex.PW1/4(colly), the Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 22 of48 Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 23 of 48 petitioner was once again admitted at Fortis Hospital with effect from 23.02.2015 to 28.02.2015 and had undergone another surgery for removal of implant and fixation with reverse distal femural locking plate and bone grafting to manage the fracture site. The petitioner had remained admitted in hospital initially for five days immediately after the accident and thereafter, for six days in February, 2015. Also, the petitioner has filed a certificate issued by Dr. Palash Gupta of Max Super Specialty Hospital, Shalimar Bagh whereby she had been prescribed Forteo injections for a period of one year with effect from September, 2015 to September, 2016. Thus, prima facie, there is sufficient material on record to arrive at a finding that the petitioner had visited various hospitals including Fortis Hospital and Max Hospital, Shalimar Bagh upto September, 2015 for treatment of injuries sustained in the case accident. Besides, as per the disability certificate of the petitioner Ex.PW1/4(colly), the petitioner had sustained 43% permanent disability on account of the injuries suffered in the case accident and thus, the petitioner had not only remained under follow up treatment at Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh but had also become permanently disabled due to injuries sustained in the case accident, and therefore, she must have required special kinds of diets, such as, high protein diet, nutritional supplements etc. for complete healing of fractures and other injuries sustained in the case accident. Besides, she must have also incurred expenses on travelling to the hospital from her residence and viceversa.
11.4 In view of above said discussion regarding injuries including fracture sustained by the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner must have remained under treatment for a period of about 12 months from the date of occurrence of the alleged accident and therefore a lump sum amount of Rs. 40,000/ is granted as compensation to the petitioner under this head including Rs. 20,000/ each towards special diet and conveyance respectively.
Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 23 of48
Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 24 of 48
12. Attendant Charges
12.1 Petitioner as PW1 has deposed by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A wherein she
had sought compensation to the tune of Rs.2,80,000/ for availing services of a medical attendantcummaid at the rate of Rs.20,000/ per month for a period of fourteen months with effect from 16.10.2014 to 15.12.2015. The petitioner has also placed on record receipts of payment Ex.PW1/5 made to one Anjana Sharma, a full time maid in support of her claim of having paid a huge sum of Rs.2,80,000/ to the said maid towards attendant charges. However, there are several material contradictions in the testimony of the petitioner PW1 Smt. Raj Bala and testimony of the maid PW3 Ms. Anjana Sharma regarding the identity of the person who had filled the receipts of payment made to Anjana Sharma and who had collected payment against the said receipts. In this context, it is noteworthy that while petitioner PW1 has deposed that her son Yatish Sharma had filled the receipts of payment which had been given in cash to PW3 Anjana Sharma. On the other hand, PW3 Anjana Sharma has deposed that her husband had filled the receipts of payment and had collected the payment against the same. Moreover, there are other shortcomings in the depositions of PW1 Smt. Raj Bala as well as in the deposition of PW3 Anjana Sharma in respect of details pertaining to the employment of Ms. Anjana Sharma as a maid with the petitioner and her other employers. It is noteworthy that Anjana Sharma had claimed in her cross examination that she had been working as a maid for the last ten years. She had, however, been unable to tell the names of her employers, their contact numbers and residential addresses and she had made a categoric statement to the effect that apart from the petitioner, she had worked as a maid with one more employer, namely, Kishan whose father's name and contact details were not known to her. Besides, it is the admitted case of the petitioner as well as the maid that she was a full time maid residing with the Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 24 of48 Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 25 of 48 petitioner at her residence, and therefore, the maid was not only getting her monthly salary from the petitioner but was also getting free of cost accommodation and free meals etc. from her employer. In such circumstances, there was no ground for payment of an exorbitant sum of Rs.20,000/ per month by the petitioner in cash to the maid when she was already receiving payment in kind in the form of free of cost accommodation, meals and other amenities, such as, clothing, toiletries etc. 12.2 Moreover, it is also the admitted case of the maid that she was not a trained medical attendant and she had categorically admitted in her cross examination that she was not in possession of any documentary proof of having undergone medical training at Kalawati Nursing Home at Mujaffar Nagar, U.P. In such circumstances, the maid hired by the petitioner was not a professional trained medical attendant or skilled labour and was, thus, not entitled to be paid an exorbitant sum of Rs.20,000/ as monthly salary. Thus, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the reasonable monthly salary which the maid was entitled to receive from her employer was that of an unskilled labour prevalent in the city of Delhi as on the date of occurrence of the case accident which was Rs.8,632/. 12.3 Keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the two surgeries undergone by her and the follow up treatment record filed by her, the period of treatment of the petitioner has already been computed to be about twelve months and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to compensation towards medical attendant charges at the rate of Rs.8,632/ per month for a period of twelve months. Accordingly, an aggregate amount of Rs. 1,03,584/ is granted under this head as attendant charges.
13. Compensation due to permanent disability/Loss of future earning capacity due to disability 13.1 Petitioner Smt. Raj Bala has claimed in her evidence by way of affidavit Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 25 of48 Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 26 of 48 Ex.PW1/A that she had sustained permanent disability and had to engage a medical attendant for her care and look after. She had further claimed in her evidence by way of affidavit that due to permanent disability sustained by her, she was unable to do household work properly, such as, looking after her grand children as a consequence of which, she and her family members had to avail service of an additional maid on monthly salary of Rs.5,000/ for doing the household work which she was previously doing herself. 13.2 A perusal of MLC of the petitioner bearing No.601/14 reveals that the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries in the case accident. Moreover, from a perusal of the discharge summaries of the petitioner issued by Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, it can be safely concluded that the petitioner had remained admitted at the said hospital with effect from 11.10.2014 to 15.10.2014 and had undergone a surgery for implantation of distal locking screw in her right hip. Subsequently, she had been again admitted at Fortis Hospital with effect from 23.02.2015 to 28.02.2015 and had undergone another surgery for removal of implant and fixation with reserve distal femural locking plate and bone grafting. 13.3 Moreover, PW2 Dr. Jitender Singh, HOD (Orthopedics), Dr. BSA Hospital, Delhi had reaffirmed during his examination in chief that as per the disability certificate No.630 dated 22.08.2016 Ex.PW1/2 issued by the disability board of Dr. BSA Hospital, patient Smt. Raj Bala Sharma had sustained 43% permanent disability in relation to her right lower limb with diagnosis of stiffness in right hip. Accordingly, the bodily disability of the petitioner is calculated as 43%. 13.4 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the recent order in case of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors vs Jaibir Singh & Ors, FAO 842/2003, date of order 09.03.2018 has inter alia held as follows:
"6.4 The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 26 of48 Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 27 of 48 different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, education and other factors.
6.5. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps:
(i) The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life).
(ii) The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age.
(iii) The third step is to find out whether :
a) The claimant is totally disabled, earning any kind of livelihood, or
b) Whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or
c) Whether he was prevented all restricted from 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."
Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 27 of48
Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 28 of 48
13.5 In the present case, the petitioner suffered permanent disability to the
tune of 43% in relation to her right lower limb with diagnosis of stiffness in right hip due to the injuries sustained in the case accident. Besides, as already discussed above, the findings of medical board regarding the nature and extent of permanent disability suffered by the petitioner have been corroborated with the deposition of PW2 Dr. Jitender Singh, HOD, Ortho, Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi, who had categorically stated that the petitioner was suffering from 43% permanent disability in relation to her right lower limb with diagnosis of stiffness of right hip. Also, from a perusal of the testimony of PW2, it is evident that no suggestion has been given to PW2 to the effect that the petitioner would have become totally incapable of doing any household work, such as, looking after her grand children in the aftermath of injuries sustained in the case accident, and therefore, as such, there is no ground to arrive at a finding to the effect that the injuries sustained in the case accident had made the petitioner totally incapacitated to perform household chores, such as, look after of her grand children.
13.6 For performing household chores as an elderly home maker, the petitioner was required to have good loco motor abilities and full functionality of her four limbs so as to enable her to efficiently do the household chores and in view of the 43% permanent disability suffered by her, the petitioner was likely to face difficulty in functioning as a home maker and her efficacy in doing household work was likely to be adversely effected due to permanent disability sustained by her.
13.7 In view of above discussion and the injuries suffered by the petitioner with permanent disability, the functional disability of the petitioner in relation to her whole body and the effect of permanent disability on her actual earning/working capacity as a home maker is taken as 21.5 %.
Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 28 of48
Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 29 of 48
13.8 Petitioner/PW1 Smt. Raj Bala had deposed that she was a housewife
rendering services of look after of her grand children and other household work. She has not placed on record any documents pertaining to her educational qualification to facilitate a finding by this Court regarding her earning capacity. Nevertheless, the gratuitous services rendered by a home maker cannot be overlooked as she renders round the clock services for preparation of food, washing, cleaning and other household chores as well as for look after of her husband and children including grand children as per her age and physical capacity to render such services.
13.9 Learned counsel for the insurance company/R2 has objected to grant of any benefit to the petitioner towards compensation due to permanent disability on ground that the petitioner was a senior citizen aged about 65 years 07 months and 10 days at the time of occurrence of the case accident, and therefore, it can be safely presumed that the petitioner was not physically fit for performing any household chores or rendering services as a home maker. Learned counsel for the insurance company/R2 has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of Royal Sunderam Alliance Insurance Company Limited Vs. Master Manmeet Singh and Others,MAC.APP. 590/2011, decided on 30 January, 2012 wherein it has been interalia held in para 34 of the judgment that loss of dependency on account of gratuitous services rendered by a housewife should ordinarily be calculated on the basis of minimum wages applicable to her case depending on her educational qualification/skills. However, the value of gratuitous service rendered by a housewife should be treated as Nil when the home maker is above 65 years of age unless there is evidence to the contrary.
13.10 Although it had been categorically held in the above cited judgment that the value of gratuitous services rendered by a home maker should ordinarily be Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 29 of48 Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 30 of 48 treated as Nil if the home maker is above 65 years of age. However, the same need not be treated as nil if there is evidence on record to establish that the housewife concerned was, in fact, rendering some kind of gratuitous services to her family even at that age. In the present case, the petitioner despite being 65 years 07 months and 10 days of age, had categorically deposed that she had been looking after her grand children as both of her sons and daughters in law were employed professionals and used to leave their house early in the morning for attending to their professional duties. One of the daughter in law of the petitioner was a professional doctor and the other was a lecturer in Delhi University and in such circumstances, care and look after of the grand children must have been the primary responsibility of the petitioner. Although the family had two house maids, however, the services rendered by a grand mother with love and affection towards her grand children cannot be equated with the services of a maid. The experience of a grand mother also comes in handy in matters of care and upbringing of grand children. Moreover, there is no material on record to arrive at a finding that the petitioner was physically incapacitated and was not able to look after her grand children prior to the occurrence of the case accident. Petitioner as PW1 has been cross examined at length during which no specific suggestion had been given to her to the effect that she was not capable of looking after her grand children prior to the accident. Although it had been generally suggested to PW1 Raj Bala that she was not doing any household activities or that she was not doing anything actively due to her old age. However, the said general suggestion has also been categorically denied by PW1 who has insisted throughout the course of her deposition that she was looking after her grand children and rendering other household services. In such circumstances, there is no material on record to arrive at a finding to the effect that the value of household service rendered by the petitioner was nil.
Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 30 of48 Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 31 of 48 13.11 Even otherwise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had not treated the value of household services rendered by elderly housewives/ladies as nil upto the age of at least 72 years and had categorically observed that the value of household services rendered by elderly ladies aged between 62 to 72 years diminishes to a great extent. Nevertheless, the same has not been treated as nil. Relevant extract of the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lata Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar and Others, Writ Petition(Civil) No.232/1991 decided on 16.08.2001 is reproduced herein below:
"So far as the deceased housewives are concerned, in the absence of any data and as the housewives were not earning any income, attempt has been made to determine the compensation, on the basis of services rendered by them to the house. On the basis of the age group of the housewives, appropriate multiplier has been applied, but the estimation of the value of services rendered to the house by the housewives, which has been arrived at Rs.12,000/ per annum in cases of some and Rs.10,000/ for others, appears to us to be grossly low. It is true that the claimants, who ought to have given datas for determination of compensation, did not assist in any manner by providing the datas for estimating the value of services rendered by such housewives. But even in the absence of such datas and taking into consideration, the multifarious services rendered by the housewives for managing the entire family, even on a modest estimation, should be Rs.3000/ per month and Rs.36,000/ per annum. This would apply to all those housewives between the age group of 34 to 59 and as such who were active in life. The compensation awarded, therefore should be recalculated, taking the value of services rendered per Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 31 of48 Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 32 of 48 annum to be Rs.36,000/ and thereafter applying the multiplier, as has been applied already, and so far as the conventional amount is concerned, the same should be Rs.50,000/ instead of Rs.25,000/ given under the Report. So far as the elderly ladies are concerned, in the age group of 62 to 72, the value of services rendered has been taken at Rs.10,000/ per annum and multiplier applied is eight. Though, the multiplier applied is correct, but the values of services rendered at Rs.10,000/ per annum, cannot be held to be just and, we, therefore, enhance the same to Rs.20,000/ per annum. In their case, therefore, the total amount of compensation should be redetermined, taking the value of services rendered at Rs.20,000/ per annum and then after applying the multiplier, as already applied and thereafter adding Rs.50,000/ towards the conventional figure."
13.12 In the light of aforesaid opinion expressed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India regarding the computation of income/earning capacity of an elderly housewife on the basis of gratuitous services rendered by her towards performing household chores as well as care and look after of her family members, the notional income of elderly ladies above the age of 65 years cannot be treated as nil in all cases, particularly in cases such as the present one wherein the elderly petitioner has categorically deposed that she was engaged in looking after her grand children in view of the fact that both of her sons and daughters in law were professionally employed and used to remain away from their children during working hours. It is noteworthy that in the year 2001, at the time of pronouncement of judgment in the above cited case of Lata Wadhwa(supra) the notional income of elderly ladies between the age of 62 to 72 years had been computed to be about 20,000/ per annum and since then, Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 32 of48 Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 33 of 48 the cost of living in a city like Delhi has increased tremendously. Even, the Government of Delhi pays approximately Rs.2,500/ as monthly pension to all senior citizens irrespective of their age and working capacity. The said old age pension is a gratuitous payment made by the government to all senior citizens who wish to avail the same without expecting them to render any services to the concerned government, and therefore, the value of gratuitous services rendered by the petitioner to her family members out of love and affection cannot be less than the pension which is being granted to the senior citizens without expecting any service from them in return by the government. In such circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to determine the value of gratuitous services rendered by petitioner, an elderly lady aged about 65 years 07 months and 10 days at the rate of Rs.2,500/ per month or Rs.30,000/ per annum. Hence, by relying upon the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in case Lata Wadhwa (supra), the notional income of the petitioner is assessed at Rs.36,000/ per annum.
14.Addition of Future Prospects.
In respect of entitlement of the petitioner to addition of future prospects in her notional income, reference should be made to the latest Constitutional Bench Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision 31.10.2017, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court interalia held as under:.
61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:
(i).........................................................................................
(ii) .....................................................................................
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 33 of48 Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 34 of 48 salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30% , if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was selfemployed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
(v) For the determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced herein before.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and future expenses should be Rs. 15,000/, Rs. 40,000/ and Rs. 15,000/ respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. "
Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 34 of48
Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 35 of 48
(.... Emphasis Supplied)
14.1 From a perusal of above cited observations made by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the decided case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.(supra), it can be safely concluded that while computing income of victims of motor vehicular accidents, although an addition of future prospects is necessary to compensate the victims for loss of earning capacity due to permanent disability and the said future prospects are determined according to the age of the petitioners. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court was mindful of the fact that income of senior citizens was not likely to increase after the age of 60 years which is generally the age of superannuation in India, and therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed that after the age of 60 years, no addition be made to the established income of victim of a road traffic accident for the purpose of computation of loss in earning capacity suffered due to disability. 14.2 Reference is also made to the case of Royal Sundaram Alliance vs Master Manmeet Singh & Ors. MAC.APP. 590/2011, decided on 30 January, 2012 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held that there shall be no addition of future prospects to the income of a home maker aged about 55 years. Relevant extract of observations made in para 23 of the judgment is reproduced herein below:
"23. Thus, the value of services rendered by a home maker should be taken as the minimum salary of a nonmatriculate, matriculate or a Graduate, (in the absence of any evidence to the contrary). In case of a young mother and a wife there should be an addition of 25% of the minimum salary/wages as per the educational qualification i.e. Graduate, matriculate or non matriculate. There should be addition of 15% in the case of a middle aged mother and a wife and „NIL‟ in case of a wife and a mother beyond the age of 50 years as the children become independent by that time. The value of Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 35 of48 Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 36 of 48 gratuitous services rendered should be gradually reduced after the age of 55 years, even though mothers take care of their children (irrespective of their ages) and even when they (the children) are married."
14.3 In the light of aforementioned opinions expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision 31.10.2017 and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of Royal Sunderam vs. Master Manmeet Singh(supra), the petitioner is not entitled to grant of elements of future prospects of increase in her income/earning capacity in view of the fact that the petitioner was a senior citizen aged about 65 years 07 months and 10 days and the income of senior citizen is not likely to increase after the age of 60 years. 14.4 The age of the petitioner, as discussed above, in the present case was about 65 years 07 months and 10 days and she was a housewife. In view of paragraph no. 61(iv) of above said judgment of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the petitioner would not be entitled to any addition of future prospects to her established income as she was above the age of 60 years at the time of her accident.
14.5 The annual income of petitioner is thus calculated as Rs.36,000/ in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Lata Wadhwa (supra). 14.6 The age of petitioner at the time of accident was about 65 years 07 months and 10 days. In the said circumstances, the relevant multiplier of "5" is to be adopted as per judgment in case of Sarla Verma vs Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 which has been upheld in paragraph no. 61(vi) in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra).
14.7 The compensation is accordingly assessed towards loss of earning capacity at Rs.32,250/[(Rs.30,000/per annum x5 (age multiplier) x 21.5/100(functional disability)].
Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 36 of48
Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 37 of 48
15. Loss of Amenities of Life.
15.1 A perusal of MLC of the petitioner bearing No.601/14 reveals that the
petitioner had suffered grievous injuries in the case accident. Moreover, from a perusal of the discharge summaries of the petitioner issued by Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, it can be safely concluded that the petitioner had undergone two surgeries and had remained admitted at the said hospital initially with effect from 11.10.2014 to 15.10.2014 during which period she had undergone a surgery for implantation of distal locking screw in her right hip for management of displaced interochanteric fracture of proximal shaft of right femur, fracture of right inferior pubic ramus and cortical discontinuity or fracture of right acctabulum. Subsequently, she had been again admitted at Fortis Hospital with effect from 23.02.2015 to 28.02.2015 and had undergone another surgery for removal of implant and fixation with reverse distal femural locking plate and bone grafting. 15.2 Moreover, PW2 Dr. Jitender Singh, HOD (Orthopedics), Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi had reaffirmed during his examination in chief that as per the disability certificate No.630 dated 22.08.2016 Ex.PW1/2 issued by the disability board of Dr. BSA Hospital, patient Smt. Raj Bala Sharma had sustained 43% permanent disability in relation to her right lower limb with diagnosis of stiffness in right hip.
15.3 Moreover, as per the follow up treatment record of the petitioner including prescription of Max Super Speciality Hospital, Shalimar Bagh whereby Dr. Palash Gupta had advised the petitioner to take twelve injections of Forteo with effect from September, 2015 to September, 2016. Besides, the period of treatment of the petitioner has already been computed to be about one year. 15.3 In view of the foregoing discussion, above mentioned grievous injuries suffered by the petitioner, her permanent disability, her functional disability and the two major surgeries undergone by her as well as by taking the probable Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 37 of48 Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 38 of 48 period of treatment already calculated to be about 12 months, a lump sum amount of Rs.60,000/ is granted under the said head as compensation to the petitioner for loss of amenities of life.
16. Pain and Suffering 16.1 In her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A, the petitioner had claimed a sum of Rs.20,000/ as compensation towards pain and suffering. In this context, a perusal of MLC of the petitioner bearing No.601/14 reveals that the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries in the case accident. Moreover, from a perusal of the discharge summaries of the petitioner issued by Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, it can be safely concluded that the petitioner had undergone two surgeries and had remained admitted at the said hospital initially with effect from 11.10.2014 to 15.10.2014 during which period she had undergone a surgery for implantation of distal locking screw in her right hip for management of displaced interochanteric fracture of proximal shaft of right femur, fracture of right inferior pubic ramus and cortical discontinuity or fracture of right acctabulum. Subsequently, she had been again admitted at Fortis Hospital with effect from 23.02.2015 to 28.02.2015 and had undergone another surgery for removal of implant and fixation with reverse distal femural locking plate and bone grafting. 16.2 In view of the injuries including fracture suffered by the petitioner, her permanent disability, her functional disability and the two major surgeries undergone by her, a lump sum amount of Rs.40,000/ is granted as compensation to the petitioner under the said head of pain and suffering.
17. Loss of Income 17.1 The petitioner in her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A has deposed that she was a house wife looking after her grand children and attending to other household chores. The petitioner has claimed in her evidence by way of evidence that she had remained bed ridden for a long period and had undergone Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 38 of48 Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 39 of 48 two surgeries of hip for the purpose of recuperation of the fractures and other injuries sustained by her. It has been claimed by the petitioner that her family had to engage additional maid for care and look after of her grand children on a salary of Rs.5,000/ per month for a period of fourteen months and thus, her family had incurred financial loss to the tune of Rs.70,000/ as payment made to the additional maid engaged in lieu of services rendered by PW1 by herself. 17.2 After taking into account the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the two surgeries undergone by her and 43% permanent disability suffered by her, the probable period of treatment in the case of the petitioner has already been determined by this Tribunal to be about 12 months. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to compensation towards loss of income for a period of twelve months.
17.3 In view of my foregoing discussion whereby the annual income of the petitioner had been computed as Rs.30,000/ and the period of treatmentcum medical rest had been computed as twelve months, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner had suffered loss of income for a period of twelve months/one year to the tune of Rs.30,000/. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.30,000/ is awarded as compensation under the head of loss of income.
18. Accordingly, the over all compensation which is to be awarded to the petitioner thus comes to Rs.8,19,176/ which is tabulated as below: Sl. No Compensation Award amount
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 40,000/ 2 Special diet & Conveyance Rs. 40,000/
3. Attendant Charges Rs. 1,03,584/
4. Medical Expenses Rs. 5,13,342/
5. Loss of income Rs. 30,000/ Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 39 of48 Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 40 of 48
6. Loss of Amenities of life Rs. 60,000/
7. Loss of future earning capacity due to Rs. 32,250/ disability Total Rs. 8,19,176/ Rounded of to Rs.8,19,176/ (Rupees Eight Lakh Nineteen Thousand One Hundred and Seventy Six Only) 18.1 In respect of entitlement of the petitioner to interest on the awarded amount, it is noteworthy that the Hon'ble Apex Court had in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC) had observed that the victims of Uphaar Tragedy be awarded compensation with interest @ 9% per annum. The present matter is pending trial since 09.03.2015 and the rate of interest of fixed deposits in Nationalized banks has fluctuated/dropped several times during the pendency of the present proceedings. Therefore, in the interest of justice, in the present case, this court is of the opinion that the claimant/petitioner is entitled to interest at the prevailing bank rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition, that is, with effect from 09.03.2015 till realisation of the compensation amount. 18.2 The amount of interim award, if any, shall however be deducted from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the petitioner.
19. Liability 19.1 In the present case, though, it is shown on record that Respondent no. 1 was not having a valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle as on the date of occurrence of the case accident, yet the insurance company/R2 is under statutory obligation to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner/claimant and it can very well recover the said amount from R1/Komal/drivercumowner of the offending vehicle as per rules. In facts and Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 40 of48 Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 41 of 48 circumstances of the case, R2/Insurance co. is granted recovery rights against R1/drivercumowner of the offending vehicle. 19.2 Accordingly, in the case in hand, in terms of order dated 16.05.2017 of Hon'ble High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors., ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd./R2 is directed to deposit the awarded amount of Rs.8,19,176/ within 30 days from today within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, that is, State Bank of India, Rohini Courts Branch, Delhi along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till notice of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R2 to the petitioner and his advocates and to show or deposit the receipt of the acknowledgement with the Nazir as per rules. R2 is further directed to deposit the awarded amount in the above said bank by means of cheque drawn in the name of above said bank along with the name of the claimant mentioned therein. The said bank is further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimant approach the bank for disbursement, so that the awarded amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheque.
APPORTIONMENT
20. Statement of petitioner in terms of clause 29 MCTAP was recorded on 01.06.2019 regarding his savings bank a/c with endorsement of MACT claims SB A/c, no loan, cheque book & ATM/debit card. I have heard the petitioner and ld. counsel for the petitioner/claimant regarding financial needs of the injured/petitioner and in view of the judgment in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others, 1994 (2) SC, 1631, for appropriate investments to safeguard the amount from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to their ignorance, illiteracy and being susceptible to exploitation, following arrangements are hereby ordered: Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 41 of48 Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 42 of 48 20.1 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, said statement of the petitioner/injured and clause 32 of MCTAP regarding protection of the award amount, it is hereby directed that on realization, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/ be released to him in his MACT Claims SB A/c no.No.053100360120015, with Corporation Bank, Shalimar Bagh, BlockAM, near DAV School, Delhi as per rules, that is, the branch near his place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under clause 29 MCTAP) and remaining amount be kept in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Account (MACAD) so that the maximum benefits can be availed by the petitioner. In case, the MACAD scheme has not become fully operational in the concerned bank, till the time the same becomes fully operational, the remaining amount be kept in 08 FDRs of equal amount for a period of one month to 08 months respectively with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
20.2 The aforesaid award amount shall be disbursed to the claimant (s) through the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in case of Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, FAO 842/2003. However, till the time MACAD Scheme becomes fully operational and to ensure that the petitioner is not put to any undue inconvenience, the fixed deposits shall be subject to following conditions:
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the victim i.e. the saving bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be individual savings account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 42 of48 Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 43 of 48 maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant/(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amount of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence i.e. above said a/c.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the court.
(f) The concerned Bank shall not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect, that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the pass book(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
21. Relief 21.1 As discussed above, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd./R2 is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs.8,19,176/ with interest @ 6% per Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 43 of48 Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 44 of 48 annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition i.e. 19.03.2015 till realization within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal i.e. SBI , Rohini Court Branch, Delhi within 30 days from today under intimation of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R2 to the petitioner and her advocate failing which the R2 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the period of delay beyond 30 days. 21.2 R2 is also directed to place on record the proof of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the amount in the above said bank to the claimants and complete details in respect of calculations of interest etc in the court within 30 days from today.
21.3 A copy of this judgment/award be sent to respondent no.2 for compliance within the granted time.
21.4 Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of non receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the granted time.
In terms of directions contained in the order dated 07.12.2018 and subsequent order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in the case of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors vs Jaibir Singh & Ors., FAO 842/2003, the copy of the award be also sent by the Ahlmad of the court to Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India (as per the list of nodal officers of 21 banks of Indian Bank's Association as circulated to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide above mentioned order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court) who is the Nodal Officer with contact details (02222741336/9414048606) {other detailsPersonal Banking Business Unit (LIMA) 13th Floor, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai400021} through email ([email protected]) through the computer branch of Rohini Courts, Delhi. Ahlmad of the court is directed to take immediate steps in that regard.
21.5 A copy of this award be forwarded to the concerned Metropolitan
Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 44 of48
Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 45 of 48
Magistrate and DLSA in terms of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. vide order dated 12.12.2014.
In view of the directions contained in order dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, the statement of petitioner was also recorded on 01.06.2019 wherein she stated that she was entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS and that she would submit form 15G to insurance co. so that no TDS is deducted.
22. Form IVB which has been duly filled in has also been attached herewith. File be consigned to record room as per rules after compliance of necessary legal formalities. Copy of order be given to parties for necessary compliance as per rules.
Announced in open court (JASJEET KAUR)
on 31st January, 2022 PO MACT N/W
Rohini Courts, Delhi.
Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 45 of48
Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 46 of 48
FORM - IV B
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1.Date of accident: 11.10.2014
2. Name of injured: Smt. Raj Bala
3. Age of the injured: 65 years 07 months and 10 days at the time of accident.
4. Occupation of the injured: housewife
5. Income of the injured: Rs.2,500/ per month(notional income)
6. Nature of injury: Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured. For about 12 months
8. Period of hospitalization: 11 days.
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details: Yes, 43% permanent disability.
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment 5,13,342/
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 20,000/
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 20,000/
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 1,03,584/
(v) Loss of earning capacity Rs. 32,250/
(vi) Loss of income Rs. 30,000/
(vii) Any other loss which may require any N/A special treatment or aid to the injured Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 46 of48 Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 47 of 48 for the rest of his life
12. NonPecuniary Loss:
(I) Compensation for mental and physical N/A
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.60,000/
(iv) Disfiguration N/A
(v) Loss of marriage prospects N/A
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, N/A
hardships, disappointment, frustration,
mental stress, dejectment and
unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and 43%
nature of disability as permanent or
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N/A
expectation of life span on account of
disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity 21.5%
in relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (Income X Rs.32,250/[(Rs.30,000/per
%Earning capacity X Multiplier) annum x5 (age multiplier) x
21.5/100(functional disability)]
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 8,19,176/
15. INTEREST AWARDED 6%
16. Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 3,37,500/
award
Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 47 of48
Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 48 of 48
17. Total amount including interest Rs. 11,56,676/
18. Award amount released Rs. 1,00,000/
19. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs. 10,56,676/
20. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in terms of amount to the claimant (s) (Clause29) clause 29 of MCTAP
21. Next date for compliance of the award. 02.03.2022 (Clause 31) Announced in open court (JASJEET KAUR) st on 31 January, 2022 PO MACT N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi.
Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Smt. Komal & Ors. Page 48 of48