Delhi District Court
Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma vs Iffco Tokio General Insurance ... on 3 October, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KUMAR
PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL :
(WEST-01):DELHI
MACT Case No. 477591/16
Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma
S/o Sh. Janardhan Sharma
R/o 622, Railway J. J. Cement side ING Camp
Shakurpur Basti, Saraswati Vihar, North West, Delhi-110034
...... Petitioners
VERSUS
1. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance (Insurer)
Fai Building, 10 Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
Qutab Industrial Area
2. Sh. Bheesahm Kumar Yadav (Driver)
S/o Sh. Daya Ram
R/o 528/D, Sri Nagar,
Shakur Basti Delhi
3. Sh. Susheel Kumar Shukla (Owner)
S/o Sh. Paras Nath Shukla
R/o F3/13, Ram Vihar Delhi
....... Respondents
AND
Sh. Ramayan Sharma
S/o Sh. Yogendra Sharma
R/o H. No. 85, Village-Mandichak,
Anchal-Banama Etahari, Distt. Saharsa,
Bihar-852126 ...... Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Bhishm Kumar Yadav (Driver)
S/o Sh. Daya Ram Yadav
R/o 528/D, Sri Nagar,
Shakur Basti Delhi
MACT Case No. 477591/2016 Page 1/38
2. Sh. Sushil Kumar Shukla (Owner)
S/o Sh. Paras Nath Shukla
R/o F3/13, Ram Vihar Delhi-110081
3. IFFCO-Tokio General Ins. Co. Ltd.
10, Shahid Jeet Singh marg,
Qutub Institutional Area, Delhi-110067
Policy No. 82071775
Valid from 21.11.2012 to 20.11.2013 ....... Respondents
Date of Institution : 07.06.2016
Date of reserving order/judgment : 11.09.2019
Date of pronouncement : 03.10.2019
A W A R D:
FORM-V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE (IN THE CASE OF KAPIL DEV
SHARMA VS. BHEESAM KUMAR YADAV & ORS)
1. Date of the accident 26.09.2013
2. Date of intimation of the accident by Date not mentioned
the Investigation Officer to the
Claims Tribunal.
3. Date of Intimation of the accident by 29.02.2016
the Investigating Officer to the
Insurance Company.
4. Date of filing of Report under 05.05.2016
Section 173 Cr. P.C. before the
Metropolitan Magistrate.
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident 07.06.2016
Information Report (DAR) by the
Investigating Officer before Claims
Tribunal.
6. Date of service of DAR on the 07.06.2016
Insurance Company.
7. Date of service of DAR on the 07.06.2016
claimant (s).
MACT Case No. 477591/2016 Page 2/38
8. Whether DAR was complete in all Yes
respects?
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the ---
DAR removed later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the Yes
documents filed with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or The accident in question took
deficiency on the part of the place on 26.09.2013 and the
Investigating Officer ? If so, whether DAR was filed on 07.06.2016
any action/ direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the 16.08.2016
Designated Officer by the Insurance
Company
13. Name, address and contact number Sh. Raj Kumar Bora, Vice
of the Designated Officer of the President
Insurance Company.
14. Whether the Designated Officer of Yes
the Insurance Company submitted
his report within 30 days of the
DAR?
15. Whether the Insurance Company No
admitted the 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 No
deficiency on the part of the
Designated Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) Not mentioned
to the offer of the Insurance
Company.
18. Date of the award 03.10.2019
19. Whether the award was passed with Yes
the consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant (s) were Yes
MACT Case No. 477591/2016 Page 3/38
directed to open savings bank
account (s) near their place of
residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant (s) 06.02.2018
were directed to open savings bank
account (s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN Card
and Adhaar 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.
22. Date on which the claimant(s) 25.09.2019
produced the passbook of their
savings bank account near the
place of their residence along with
the endorsement, PAN Card and
Adhaar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of R/o 622. Railway J. J. Cement
the Claimant(s). Siding Camp Shakur Basti,
Saraswati Vihar, North West,
Delhi-110034
24. Details of savings bank account(s) A/c No. 406302010100090 of
of the claimant(s) and the address Union Bank of India, Central
of the bank with IFSC Code. Market, Punjabi Bagh, New
Delhi Branch
IFSC Code: UBIN0540633
25. Whether the claimant(s) savings Yes
bank account (s) in near his place of
residence?
26. Whether the claimant (s) were Yes
examined at the time of passing of
the award to ascertain his/their
financial condition?
27. Account number, MICR number, ADJ/MACT/Parking Account of
IFSC Code, name and branch of the SBI Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi as
bank of the Claims Tribunal in which informed by the Chief Manager,
the award amount is to be SBI Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
deposited/transfered. MICR:- 110002126, IFSC
Code:- SBIN0000726
MACT Case No. 477591/2016 Page 4/38
FORM-V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE (IN THE CASE OF RAMAYAN
SHARMA @ RAMAN SHARMA VS. BHEESAM KUMAR YADAV &
ORS)
1. Date of the accident 26.09.2013
2. Date of intimation of the accident by Date not mentioned
the Investigation Officer to the
Claims Tribunal.
3. Date of Intimation of the accident by 29.02.2016
the Investigating Officer to the
Insurance Company.
4. Date of filing of Report under 05.05.2016
Section 173 Cr. P.C. before the
Metropolitan Magistrate.
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident 07.06.2016
Information Report (DAR) by the
Investigating Officer before Claims
Tribunal.
6. Date of service of DAR on the 07.06.2016
Insurance Company.
7. Date of service of DAR on the 07.06.2016
claimant (s).
8. Whether DAR was complete in all Yes
respects?
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the ---
DAR removed later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the Yes
documents filed with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or The accident in question took
deficiency on the part of the place on 26.09.2013 and the
Investigating Officer ? If so, whether DAR was filed on 07.06.2016
any action/ direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the 16.08.2016
Designated Officer by the Insurance
Company
MACT Case No. 477591/2016 Page 5/38
13. Name, address and contact number Sh. Raj Kumar Bora, Vice
of the Designated Officer of the President
Insurance Company.
14. Whether the Designated Officer of Yes
the Insurance Company submitted
his report within 30 days of the
DAR?
15. Whether the Insurance Company No
admitted the 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 No
deficiency on the part of the
Designated Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) Not mentioned
to the offer of the Insurance
Company.
18. Date of the award 03.10.2019
19. Whether the award was passed with Yes
the consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant (s) were Yes
directed to open savings bank
account (s) near their place of
residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant (s) 06.02.2018
were directed to open savings bank
account (s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN Card
and Adhaar 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.
22. Date on which the claimant(s) 11.09.2019
produced the passbook of their
MACT Case No. 477591/2016 Page 6/38
savings bank account near the
place of their residence along with
the endorsement, PAN Card and
Adhaar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of R/o Gram-Mundichak, Post-
the Claimant(s). Sarbela, Thana-Salkhua, Ward
No. 02, Sarbela, Saharsa, Bihar-
852127
24. Details of savings bank account(s) A/c No. 37580541444 of State
of the claimant(s) and the address Bank of India, Ghordaur
of the bank with IFSC Code. Village+ PO Ghordaur
IFSC Code: SBIN0008156
25. Whether the claimant(s) savings Yes
bank account (s) in near his place of
residence?
26. Whether the claimant (s) were Yes
examined at the time of passing of
the award to ascertain his/their
financial condition?
27. Account number, MICR number, ADJ/MACT/Parking Account of
IFSC Code, name and branch of the SBI Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi as
bank of the Claims Tribunal in which informed by the Chief Manager,
the award amount is to be SBI Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
deposited/transfered. MICR:- 110002126, IFSC
Code:- SBIN0000726
1. Vide this common Judgment-cum-Award, I shall decide
the present claim petition in respect of the injuries suffered by the
injured Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma and injured Sh. Ramayan Sharma
under Section 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 as amended
up to date (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') filed by injured
persons for grant of compensation for the injuries suffered by them
in the road vehicular accident.
2. Both the abovesaid claim petitions have arisen of the
same FIR bearing no. 325/2013 PS Vikaspuri and that is why, the
same are being taken up together for disposal vide this common
MACT Case No. 477591/2016 Page 7/38
award.
3. Brief facts of the case of the petitioners are that on
26.09.2013, the injured Kapil Dev alongwith Sh. Raman Sharma @
Ramayan Sharma were working as labourer in cement siding
Shakurbasti and going towards Najafgarh Delhi in the truck bearing
no. HR-55P-6334 for unloading the cement bags which were
loaded in the said truck. It has been further stated that they were
sitting in the offending vehicle in the capacity of labourer. It has
been further stated that the offending vehicle was being driven by
the respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner. It has been
further stated that when at 2:00 pm, the offending vehicle reached
near Ganda Nala Road near Jal Board Office, suddenly, the
respondent no.1 accelerated the speed of the truck in a rash and
negligent manner without caring of the sitting labourers in the truck.
It has been further stated that in the meantime, the respondent no.1
lost his control over the truck and the said truck turned turtle on the
hump (i.e. heap of soil/sand) with a great force. It has been further
stated that due to the forceful impact, the cement bags fell on the
injured persons and they sustained grievous multiples injuries in all
parts of their bodies. It has been further stated that after the
accident, the injured persons were taken to Maharaj Agarsen
Hospital, Punjabi Bagh by some unknown person.
4. It has been further stated that as a result of the
abovesaid accident, FIR No. 325/13 dated 26.09.2013 PS Vikaspuri
u/s 279/338 IPC was registered against the driver Sh. Bheeshm
Kumar Yadav.
5. It has been further stated that at the time of the accident,
the petitioner Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma was 32 years of age. It has
been further stated that at the time of accident, the petitioner was
MACT Case No. 477591/2016 Page 8/38
working as Labour in Cement Factory and earning Rs.10,000/- per
month.
6. The petitioner has claimed compensation under various
heads and in total the petitioner has claimed the amount of Rs.
1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) along with the interest.
7. It has been further stated that the respondent no.1 being
the insurer of the offending vehicle, the respondent No. 2 being the
Driver of the offending vehicle and the respondent no.3 being the
owner of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay
the compensation to the petitioner.
Facts involved in the other petition titled as Ramayan Sharma
vs. Bheeshm Kumar Yadav
8. So far as the factum of the accident in question concerned, the factual matrix leading to the accident as narrated by injured Sh. Ramayan Sharma is the same as has been narrated by the injured Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, the material aspects of which have already been narrated here in above.
9. It has been further stated that at the time of accident, the injured Sh. Ramayan Sharma was 30 years of age. It has been further stated that the injured was working as Labourer loading & uploading of work and earning Rs.15,000/- per month.
10. The petitioner Sh. Ramayan Sharma has claimed an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs Only) in the present claim petition as compensation.
11. It has been further stated that the respondent no.1 being the driver of the offending vehicle, the respondent No. 2 being the owner of the offending vehicle and the respondent no.3 being the MACT Case No. 477591/2016 Page 9/38 insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.
12. Despite opportunities, no written statement was filed by the respondents No.1 & 2.
13. Written statement has been filed by the insurance company stating therein that the alleged offending vehicle was insured with it vide policy no. 82071775 valid from 21.11.2012 to 20.11.2013 issued in the name of Sh. Sushil Kumar. It has been further stated that the offending vehicle bearing no. HR-55P-6334 was a goods vehicle and the injured alongwith other occupants were travelling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passengers. It has been prayed that the present claim petition be dismissed.
14. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by this Tribunal on 08.08.2018:-
1. Whether the injured namely Kapil Dev Sharma and Sh. Ramayan Sharma suffered injuries in the accident that took place on 26.09.2013 at about 2 pm due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No. HR 55P 6334 by the respondent no.2 Sh. Bheesahm Kumar Yadav, being owned by the respondent no.3 and insured with the respondent no.1? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, at what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
15. In order to establish his claim, the petitioner Sh. Ramayan Sharma @ Raman Sharma has examined himself as PW-1 and in his evidence by way of affidavit, he has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand as taken by him in the present claim petition. He has filed on record his affidavit as Ex. PW1/A; the original MACT Case No. 477591/2016 Page 10/38 emergency casualty card, original discharge summaries and OPD Cards as Ex. PW1/1(colly); his medical bills along with bill summary to the tune of Rs.179,686/- as Ex. PW1/2(colly); photocopy of his educational qualification certificate as Ex. PW1/3(OSR)(colly running into 2 pages); photocopy of his Voter Election Identity Card as Ex. PW1/4(OSR) and DAR as Ex. PW1/5 (colly).
16. In the cross-examination done by ld. Counsel for the insurance company, PW-1 admits it to be correct that he has not filed any document to show that he was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month or that he is income tax assessee. PW-1 admits it to be correct that he has not filed any document to show that he has spent Rs.80,000/- on special diet, Rs.50,000/- on conveyance and Rs. 3 lakhs on attendant.
17. PW-1 further states that at the time of accident, he was working as a Labour and doing the work of loading and unloading of cement. PW-1 admits it to be correct that the offending vehicle is a goods vehicle. PW-1 further states that he was sitting in the rear portion of the offending vehicle. PW-1 further states that they were 5 persons namely Kapil, Radhe, Vipin, Dilshad and he himself. PW-1 further states that the owner of the vehicle namely Sushil engaged him as a labour. PW-1 further states that he does not know who was the owner of the goods i.e. cement bags. PW-1 further states that he does not remember when his statement was recorded by the police.
18. PW-1 admits it to be correct that he has not filed any document to show that he was engaged by Sushil, owner of the vehicle as a labourer.
19. In order to establish his claim, the injured Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma has examined himself as PW-2 and in his evidence by way MACT Case No. 477591/2016 Page 11/38 of affidavit, he has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand as taken by him in the present claim petition. He has filed on record his affidavit as Ex. PW2/A.
20. In the cross-examination done by ld. Counsel for the insurance company, PW-2 has admitted it to be correct that he has not mentioned in his affidavit Ex. PW2/A that he has not suffered any loss of income due to the injuries sustained in the accident. PW-2 states that at the time of accident, he was working as a Labour and doing the work of loading and uploading of cement. PW-2 admits it to be correct that the offending vehicle was a goods vehicle. PW-2 further states that he was sitting in the rear portion of the offending vehicle. PW-2 further states that they were 5 persons namely Ramayan Sharma @ Raman Sharma, Radhe, Vipin, Dilshad and he himself. PW-2 further states that the owner of the vehicle namely Sushil engaged him as a labourer. PW-2 further states that he does not know who was the owner of the goods i.e. cement bags. PW-2 further stated that he did not visit again to the spot of the accident after the accident. PW-2 further states that no site plan was prepared in his presence.
21. PW-2 admits it to be correct that he has not filed any documents to show that he was engaged by Sushil, owner of the vehicle as a labourer.
22. The petitioner Sh. Ramayan Sharma @ Raman Sharma has examined Dr. Naresh Chandra, Specialist and Incharge of Orthopaedic Department, Guru Govind Singh Government Hospital, Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi as PW-3 and this witness has proved on record the disability certificate of the petitioner Sh. Ramayan Sharma @ Raman Sharma which has been exhibited as Ex. PW3/1. PW-3 has further stated that the petitioner Sh. Ramayan MACT Case No. 477591/2016 Page 12/38 Sharma @ Raman Sharma was having 90% permanent disability in relation to his spine.
23. In the cross-examination done by Ld. Counsel for the insurance company, PW-3 states that on the basis of the MLC and the discharge summary, he can say that above permanent disability has occurred on account of accidental injuries. PW-3 further states that as per new guidelines, the existing disability is in relation to whole body.
24. The insurance company has examined its Assistant Manager Sh. Siddhant Jaiswal as R3W1 and in his evidence by way of affidavit, he has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand as taken by the insurance company in his written statement. R3W1 has filed on record his affidavit of Ex. R3W1/A; the copy of insurance policy as Ex.R3W1/1, the office copy of notice u/o 12 Rule 8 of the CPC as Ex. R3W1 /2; the postal receipts as Ex. R3W1/4 and Ex. R3W1/4 and returned envelope as Ex. R3W1/5.
25. In the cross-examination, R3W1 has denied the suggestion that both the petitioners were travelling in the insured vehicle and the company is liable to pay compensation.
26. I have gone through the testimony of the witnesses; entire material available on record. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments addressed by the Ld. counsels for the parties. The injured Kapil Dev Sharma and injured Sh. Ramayan Sharma @ Raman Sharma have also been examined under the MCTAP and I have considered the statements of the petitioners under MCTAP as well.
My findings on various issues are as under :-
ISSUE NO. 1 MACT Case No. 477591/2016 Page 13/3827. The present petitions have been filed by the petitioners u/s 166 & 140 M. V. Act and the onus is upon the petitioners to prove the rash and negligent act of the respondent No.1.
28. The injured Sh. Ramayan Sharma @ Raman Sharma has examined himself as PW-1 and the injured Kapil Dev Sharma has also examined himself as PW-2 and they have well explained the mode and manner of accident. They have has reaffirmed and reiterated the averments made in their petitions. During their entire cross examination, nothing has come out so as to discredit their testimonies.
29. The respondents No. 1 & 2 have not filed on record any reply controverting the factual matrix as narrated by the IO in the DAR or the facts as narrated by the petitioners in their respective claim petitions. The respondents no.1 & 2 have also not led any evidence to controvert the stand of the petitioners. As such, the testimonies of PW-1 & PW-2 remain uncontroverted and unchallanged, so far as the negligence aspect of the matter is concerned.
30. As such, I am of the opinion that by way of cogent and reliable evidence, the petitioners have been able to prove that on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle while driving the offending vehicle, the accident in question was caused.
31. In the present case, as per the case of the petitioners, FIR No. 325/13 dated 26.09.2013 PS Vikaspuri u/s 279/338 IPC was registered against the driver Sh. Bheeshm Kumar Yadav.
32. In Bimla Devi & Ors vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & ors (2009) 13 SC 530, in Kaushnumma Beum and others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 MACT Case No. 477591/2016 Page 14/38 SC, in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pushpa Rana cited as 2009 ACJ 287, it has been held that the negligence has to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view is to be taken. It has been further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicle Act are not akin to the proceedings in a Civil Suit and hence, strict rules of evidence are not applicable.
33. In the light of the abovesaid discussion, to my mind, the petitioners have been able to prove issue No.1 in their favour and accordingly, the issue No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO.2/COMPENSATION IN CASE OF KAPIL DEV SHARMA vs. Bheesam Kumar Yadav
34. LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY For the purposes of assessing the loss of earning capacity, the income of the Petitioner/injured needs to be assessed along with the functional disability suffered by him due to the injuries sustained in the accident.
(a) Criteria for determining the income of the Petitioner The petitioner in the claim petition has stated that the injured was working as a Labour and doing the work of loading and unloading of cement and earning Rs.10,000/- per month.
But nothing has been placed on record by the petitioner to show that he was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. As such, to my mind, the petitioner has utterly failed to prove on record that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month.
As such, the income of the deceased can very well be assessed on the basis of the chart available in the Minimum MACT Case No. 477591/2016 Page 15/38 Wages Act of an Unskilled person. The date of accident is 26.09.2013 on which the minimum wages for an Unskilled person for the relevant period were Rs. 7,722/-per month.
(b) Loss of Income on account of accident Perusal of the DAR filed by the IO alongwith the documents as Ex. PW1/5 reveals that after the accident, Kapil Dev Sharma was taken to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi.
As such, to my mind, it can be safely concluded that the petitioner was not able to do his job/work for a period of one month. As such, the amount of Rs.7722/- (Rs.7722/- x 1) is granted to the petitioner on account of loss of income due to the accident in question.
(c) Pain, Suffering & Mental Agony Keeping in view the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the duration of the treatment of the petitioner, he is awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) on account of pain, suffering and mental agony.
(d) Medicines and Medical Treatment No medical bill has been filed on record by the injured. As such, the petitioner is not entitled any amount under this head.
(e) Conveyance, Attendant Charges & Special Diet Keeping in view the duration of the treatment of the petitioner and nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded to the petitioner on account of conveyance, attendant charges and special diet collectively.
MACT Case No. 477591/2016 Page 16/3835. As discussed above, the overall compensation is tabulated as under:
Loss of Income on Account of accident Rs.7722/-
Pain and Suffering Rs.10,000/-
Medicines & Medical Treatment NIL
Conveyance, Attendant Charges Rs. 10,000/-
and Special Diet ------------------
Total Rs. 27,722/-
(Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Two Only)
36. On the said amount, interest @ 9% per annum is also awarded from the date of filing of petition i.e. from 07.06.2016. 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.
37. It is further held that Respondent No.1 being the insurer of the offending vehicle, the respondent no.2 being the driver of the offending vehicle and respondent no.3 being the owner of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to make the payment of compensation to the Petitioner/claimant.
R E L I E F:
38. I hereby pass an award of Rs.27,722/-(Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Two Only)as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum including interim award, if any from the date of filing the DAR/claim petition i.e. w.e.f. 07.06.2016 in favour of the petitioner MACT Case No. 477591/2016 Page 17/38 and against the respondents.
HEARD ON THE FINANCIAL STATUS OF THE CLAIMANT BEFORE PASSING OF THE AWARD AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP).
39. The petitioner has also been examined under MCTAP on 06.08.2019 and his statement has also been considered by this Tribunal.
40. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and the abovesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the respondent no.1/insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of Rs.27,722/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Two Only) as stated herein above with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi which shall be released to the petitioner keeping in view the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and that of the respondents as well and in the entirety of the facts.
41. In accordance with the orders dated 08.02.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 in Rajesh Tyagi and others Vs. Jaibir Singh and others, Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager has been appointed as Nodal Officer of SBI having Phone no. 022-22741336/9414048606 and e mail ID [email protected]. In case of any assistance or non compliance, the aforesaid Nodal Officer may be contacted to. A copy of this order be sent by e-mail to the aforesaid Nodal Officer of the aforesaid bank by the Ahlmad of the Court immediately in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court as contained in the orders dated 07.12.2018. The Nodal Officer of the MACT Case No. 477591/2016 Page 18/38 bank shall ensure the disbursement of the award amount within three weeks of the receipt of the e-mail as mentioned in the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
ISSUE NO.2/COMPENSATION IN CASE OF RAMAYAN SHARMA VS. BHISHAM KUMAR YADAV & ORS.
42. Nature of injuries and reimbursement of medical bills The petitioner Sh. Ramayan Sharma has examined himself as PW-1 and he has described the nature of injuries in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A on record. In the claim petition, the injured has mentioned that he has suffered grievous injuries and that he has become a burden upon his family.
In order to prove his case, the petitioner has filed on record the original emergency casulty card, original discharge summaries and OPD cards as ex. PW1/1(colly).
Perusal of DAR Ex. PW1/5 (colly) reveals that the MLC of the injured is included therein. In the MLC of the injured, it has been categorically mentioned that the injured has suffered grievous injuries in the accident in question which took place on 26.09.2013.
Further perusal of Ex. PW1/1(colly) which includes the discharge summary issued by JPN Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS that the injured Sh. Rama Nand Sharma was admitted in the said hospital on 28.09.2013 and discharged on 13.10.2013. Thereafter, the injured was admitted in Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi on 19.10.2013 and discharged on 01.11.2013. The petitioner was taking regular treatment from the said hospital and he was lastly treated as an OPD patient in the said hospital on 27.11.2013.
The petitioner has also filed on record his medical bills MACT Case No. 477591/2016 Page 19/38 alongwith bill summary to the tune of Rs.1,79,686/-.
The total bills comes to Rs.1,79,686/-. Keeping in view the long duration of the treatment of the petitioner, to my mind, the petitioner is entitled for the sum of Rs. 1,79,686/- under this head.
43. Compensation towards future treatment Though, the petitioner has pleaded in the claim petition that he is still under medical treatment but nothing has been placed on record by the petitioner to show the amount which he has to incur on his future treatment.
In the recent judgment dated 06.03.2018 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2217/2018, arising out of SLP (C) No. 7739 of 2017 titled as Jagdish vs. Mohan & Ors., the Ld. MACT Court had granted a compensation of Rs.1281228/- to the petitioner Sh. Jagdish was 24 years of age and who met with an accident which took place on 24.11.2011. He suffered 90% disability in both his hands. In appeal, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi enhanced the compensation by Rs.219000/-. In further appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted the total compensation of Rs.2538308/- along with the interest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India granted an amount of Rs. 3 lacs towards future medical expenses to the injured and held that the measure of compensation must reflect a genuine attempt of the law to restore the dignity of the being.
Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances in the present matter, keeping in view the disability certificate of the petitioner and keeping in view the ratio of the abovestated authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, I hereby award an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner on MACT Case No. 477591/2016 Page 20/38 account of future treatment.
44. Pain & sufferings It is settled law that a particular amount can not be fixed on pain and sufferings for all cases as it varies from case to case. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that since the petitioner had got injuries as above, he might have suffered acute pain and sufferings owing to the said injuries.
It has to be seen that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the orders dated 10.04.2017 passed in MAC Appeal No. 359/2009 titled as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Manjeet Singh & ors and MAC Appeal no. 407/2011 titled as Manjeet Singh vs. oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. has granted the compensation for pain and suffering at Rs. 1,00,000 after enhancing the same from Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal and the compensation for loss of amenities of life was also enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- from Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
In the abovestated authority titled as Jagdish vs. Mohan & Ors., the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has granted a sum of Rs.2 lacs on account of pain, suffering and loss of amenities.
Considering the nature of injuries, duration of the treatment of the petitioner in the hospital and the disability suffered by the petitioner as mentioned in the disability certificate as elicited above and the ratio of the authorities cited herein above, I hereby grant compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and sufferings.
45. Compensation for conveyance & special diet Though there is no cogent evidence on record for the money spent by the petitioner for special diet, yet considering the MACT Case No. 477591/2016 Page 21/38 nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner and duration of his treatment in the hospitals, I am of the opinion that petitioner must have spent some sum under this head. Hence, I hereby grant compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for expenses incurred on special diet and Rs.20,000/- towards conveyance.
46. Compensation towards attendant charges Though, there is no cogent evidence on record for the money spent by the petitioner for attendant, yet considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner and the duration of the treatment of the petitioner in the hospital, I am of the opinion that petitioner must have spent some sum under this head. Hence, I hereby grant compensation of Rs. 20,000/- towards attendant charges.
47. Compensation towards loss of income during treatment period The petitioner has filed on record copy of his educational qualification certificate as Ex. PW1/3(colly). In Ex. PW1/3, the date of birth of the injured has been mentioned as 24.01.1986. The accident took place on 26.09.2013. Accordingly, the petitioner was about 27 years of age on the date of accident.
In the claim petition, the petitioner has claimed that at the time of accident, the petitioner was working as a Labour and doing the work of loading and unloading of cement and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. But the petitioner in the cross examination admitted it to be correct that he has not placed on record any documentary proof to show that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month.
MACT Case No. 477591/2016 Page 22/38Accordingly, the income of the petitioner can very well be assessed on the basis of the chart available in the Minimum Wages Act of an Unskilled person. The date of accident was 26.09.2013 on which the minimum wages for an Unskilled person for the relevant period were Rs. 7722/- per month.
Considering the facts and circumstances as well as nature of injuries and treatment period of the petitioner, the court is of the opinion that petitioner could not have worked for about 12 months. Accordingly, I hereby grant compensation for a sum of Rs. 92,664/- (Rs.7722/- x 12) towards loss of income during treatment period.
48. Compensation on account of disability This Tribunal has received the disability certificate of the petitioner Ramayan Sharma @ Raman Sharma from Guru Govind Singh Govt. Hospital. In the disability certificate, it has been specifically mentioned that the petitioner has suffered 90% permanent disability in relation to his spine.
In the disability certificate, it has been categorically mentioned that the condition of the petitioner is non-progressive and not likely to improve.
It has to be seen that in the authority titled as V. Mekala vs. M. Malathi and another cited as 2014 ACJ 1441 decided on 25.4.2014, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has taken the disability of the injured as 70% in accordance of the opinion of the doctors who had ascertained the disability as 70%. The doctor had opined that the injured was not able to sit cross-legged comfortably on the floor and the right leg movement of the injured was also affected adversely.
MACT Case No. 477591/2016 Page 23/38It has to be further seen that in MAC App. No. 1150/2014 & CM No.20819/2014 in the case titled Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ashok Sen Gupta & Ors. cited decided on 24.12.2014 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the injured was suffering from 19% permanent disability in relation to his right upper limb. The Tribunal assessed the functional disability at 50%. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi took into account the nature of disability which was akin to stiffness of the right upper limb of the injured and assessed the functional disability at 40%.
It has to be further seen that in MAC Appeal No. 1/2013 in case titled as IFFCO Tokio General Insurance vs. Arjun & Ors decided on 04.01.2018 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, as per the disability certificate Ex. PW3/A, the disability was 50% but the same was taken as 25% functional by the Tribunal. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the appeal which was decided on 04.01.2018, took the functional disability to the extent of 50%.
It is true that functional disability has to be assessed separately in comparison to the physical disability, keeping in view the avocation/job/nature of work of the injured and the nature of the injuries suffered by the injured.
Accordingly, considering the fact that the job of the petitioner is going to be hampered on account of the disability suffered by him and the ratio of the abovestated authorities, I hereby treat the functional disability of the petitioner as 90% which has been mentioned in his disability certificate Ex. PW3/1 on record.
It has to be seen that in the judgment dated 20.09.2018 passed in MAC APP. No. 345/2017 titled as TATA AIG General Insurance Company ltd. vs. Chander Maitra & Ors. by the Hon'ble MACT Case No. 477591/2016 Page 24/38 High Court of Delhi, in para no. 8, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as under:-
8. As regards grant of "future prospects" in a case of injury is concerend, Supreme Court in Shashi (Supra), has made addition towards "future prospects" while relying upon Supreme Court's Constitution Bench decision in National Insurance Company ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.
(2017) 16 SCC 680. Another Bench of Supreme Court while dealing with the case of injury in Anand son of Sidheshwar Dukre vs. Pratap son of Zhamnnappa Lamzane & Anr. 2018(10) SCALE 130, has not made any addition towards "future prospects". It is a matter of record that Supreme Court's Constitution Bench decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra), has not dealt with injury case and therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant any addition towards "future prospects".
It has to be also seen that in the judgment dated 02.01.2019 passed in MFA No. 5018 of 2017 (MV) titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sri Venkatesh Babu decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnatakar at Bengaluru the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in para no. 7 has held as under:-
"7.The only ground made for interference is in respect of awarding compensation towards future prospects. As we have discussed earlier that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prany Sethi (supra) it is held that future prospects is to be award in case of death and static income and also in respect of age. Since the claimant is the injured himself and the percentage of disability is less thatn 100% under this circumstances we are declined to extend the benefit of future prospects to the claimant. The income taken at Rs. 10,000/- is retained. But adding 50% to it is to be removed.
Hence the calculation would be Rs. 10,000/- x 12 x 17 x 50% = Rs.11,22,000/-. Same is awarded in respect of loss of future income and compensation awarded under other heads and retained. This Rs.5,61,000/- stands deducted from out of the MACT Case No. 477591/2016 Page 25/38 amount assessed by the claims Tribunal under loss of future income."
In view of the said authorities, to my mind, the future prospects cannot be granted to the petitioner.
As per the settled law, the multiplier has to be selected as per the age of the injured which is 27 years in the case in hand. Accordingly, the multiplier of 17 as per Sarla Verma vs. DTC 2009 ACJ 1298 SC shall be applicable.
In these circumstances, the total loss of earning capacity comes out to Rs.14,17,759/- (After rounding off Rs.14,17,759.2/-) (Rs. 7722/- x 12 x 17x 90/100).
49. Compensation towards loss of amenities of life. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present facts; the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner as elicited above, I hereby grant compensation of Rs. 25,000/- on account of loss of amenities of life.
In the circumstances of the case, I award the injured the compensation as tabulated hereunder:-
S No. Heads of Compensation Amount
1. Reimbursement of medical Rs. 1,79,686/-
expenses
2 Compensation on account of Rs.1,00,000/-
future treatment
3. Pain and Suffering Rs.50,000/-
4. Conveyance & special diet Rs.20,000/- and
Rs.20,000/-
(special diet)
5. Attendant charges Rs.20,000/-
6. Loss of Income during Rs.92,664/-
treatment period
MACT Case No. 477591/2016 Page 26/38
7. Compensation on account of Rs.14,17,759/-
disability
8. Loss of amenities of life Rs. 25,000/-
Total Rs. 19,25,109/-
R E L I E F:-
50. I hereby pass an award of Rs. 19,25,109/- (Rupees
Nineteen Lacs Twenty Five Thousand One Hundred and Nine Only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the DAR/claim petition i.e. w.e.f. 07.06.2016 in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
51. 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.
HEARD ON THE FINANCIAL STATUS OF THE CLAIMANT BEFORE PASSING OF THE AWARD AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP).
52. The petitioner has also been examined under MCTAP on 11.09.2019 and his statement has also been considered by this Tribunal.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP).
53. This court is in receipt of the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors whereby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has formulated MACAD(Motor Accident Claims Annunity Deposit Scheme) which has been made effective from 01.01.2019. The said orders dated 07.12.2018 also mentions that 21 banks including State Bank of India is one of such banks which are to MACT Case No. 477591/2016 Page 27/38 adhere to MACAD. The State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
54. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and the abovesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 19,25,109/- (Rupees Nineteen Lacs Twenty Five Thousand One Hundred and Nine Only) as stated herein above with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, out of which the amount of Rs. 2,25,109/- (Rupees Two Lacs Twenty Five Thousand One Hundred and Nine Only) shall be released to the petitioner keeping in view the medical bills and submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and that of the respondents as well and in the entirety of the facts.
55. The rest of the amount of Rs. 17,00,000/- shall be kept in 170 equal monthly FDR's for the period of one month to 170 months for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- each with cumulative interest in favour of the petitioner. However, money can be withdrawn through withdrawl slip only.
56. The following conditions are to be adhered to by SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi with respect to the fixed deposits:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody.
However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
MACT Case No. 477591/2016 Page 28/38(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 amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant
(s) near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-
mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not be 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 passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
57. In accordance with the orders dated 08.02.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 in Rajesh Tyagi and others Vs. Jaibir Singh and others, Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager has been appointed as Nodal Officer of SBI having Phone no. 022-22741336/9414048606 and email ID [email protected]. In case of any assistance or non MACT Case No. 477591/2016 Page 29/38 compliance, the aforesaid Nodal Officer may be contacted to. A copy of this order be sent by e-mail to the aforesaid Nodal Officer of the aforesaid bank by the Ahlmad of the Court immediately in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court as contained in the orders dated 07.12.2018. The Nodal Officer of the bank shall ensure the disbursement of the award amount within three weeks of the receipt of the e-mail as mentioned in the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY
58. Ld. Counsel for the insurance company has argued that the injured persons were travelling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passengers.
59. Ld. Counsel for the insurance company has relied upon an authority titled as New India Assurance Company ltd. vs. Rukhmanbai & Anr. cited as I(2019) ACC 589 (Bom.) decided on 09.10.2018 by Hon'ble Bombay High Court, the authority titled as Omkar Singh & Anr. vs. Rajendra Agrawal & ors. Cited as I (2019) ACC 593 (Chha.) decided on 17.03.2017 by the Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court, the authority cited as Civil Appeal No. 7805/2002 titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bhukya Tara & ors. Decided on 08.05.2008 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India., the authority titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Baljit Kaur & ors. cited as Appeal (civil) 16 fo 2004 decided on 06.01.2004 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the authority titled as New India Assurance Co. ltd. vs. Asha Rani & Ors. cited as Appeal (civil) 5385 of 2001 decided on 03.12.2002 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the authority titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Lal Singh & Ors.
MACT Case No. 477591/2016 Page 30/38cited as MAC. APP. 651/2013 decided on 19.02.2015 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
60. It has to be seen that the injured persons, in their cross-examinations have stated that they were working as labourers and doing the work of loading and unloading of cement. They have further stated that they were sitting in the rear portion of the offending vehicle.
61. It has to be seen in the authority titled as ICICI Lombard General Ins. Co. ltd. vs. Mamta Uikey & Ors. Cited as 2019 ACJ 1400 decided on 10.04.2018 the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in para no.8 thereof has held as under:-
"8. We have heard claimant, who is present in person and find that the award rendered by the Tribunal cannot be said to be unjustified. The deceased was a labourer engaged in extracting of sand, therefore, he was not a gratuitous passenger but a person who was engaged by the contractor/owner of truck. Thus, he cannot be said to be a gratuitous passenger. The judgments absolving the insurance company from liability of payment of compensation for gratuitous passenger are not applicable in the present case.
62. In the light of the ratio of the abovestated authority, the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the insurance company qua the gratuitous passengers is not sustainable.
63. Since the offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company, insurance company is hereby directed to deposit the award amount in favour of the petitioner with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi within a period of 30 days from the date of MACT Case No. 477591/2016 Page 31/38 passing of this award together with the interest as stated herein above under the intimation to this court and under intimation to the petitioner as well. In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 14.11.2019.
A copy of this award be given to the all the parties free of cost.
A copy of this award be sent to the concerned Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate as well as DSLSA as per the provisions of the MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE (MCTAP). RAJ Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR Announced in the open court KUMAR Date: 2019.10.10 12:12:19 +0530 On 3rd of October, 2019 (RAJ KUMAR) P.O.MACT (WEST-01) Delhi (03.10.2019) MACT Case No. 477591/2016 Page 32/38 FORM-IVB SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE IN THE CASE OF KAPIL DEV SHARMA VS.
BHEESAM KUMAR YADAV
1. Date of accident : 26.09.2013
2. Name of the injured : Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma
3. Age of the injured : 32 years
4. Occupation of the injured : Labourer
5. Income of the injured : Rs.7722/- as per Minimum Wages Act
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken : On 26.09.2013
8. Period of Hospitalization : 26.09.2013
9. Whether any permanent disability ?
If yes, give details : NA.
10. Computation of Compensation
S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(I) Expenditure on treatment Nil
(ii) Expenditure on Rs.10,000/- (Conveyance, Attendant
conveyance charges and Special Diet)
(iii) Expenditure on special diet As above
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant As above
(v) Loss of earning capacity NIL
(vi) Loss of Income Rs.7722/-
(vii) Any other loss which may Nil
require any special
treatment or aid to the
MACT Case No. 477591/2016 Page 33/38
injured for the rest of his
life
12. Non-Pecunicary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental NIL
and physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 10,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life NIL
(iv) Disfiguration
(v) Loss of marriage N.A.
prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, N.A.
inconvenience, hardships,
disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and
unhappiness in future life
etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(I) Percentage of disability NIL
assessed and nature of
disability as permanent or
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss N/A
of expectation of life span
on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of NIL
earning capacity in relation
to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - Nil
(Income x% Earning
Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 27,722/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the Rs.8288.67(3 years 3 months and 26
MACT Case No. 477591/2016 Page 34/38
date of award days)
17. Total amount including Rs. 36,010.67
interest
18. Award amount released Award Amount
19. Award amount kept in NIL
FDRs
20. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award
the award amount to the
claimant (s).
21. Next date for compliance 14.11.2019
of the award.
( RAJ KUMAR )
P.O. MACT (WEST-01)
Delhi 03.10.2019
MACT Case No. 477591/2016 Page 35/38
FORM-IVB
SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE IN THE CASE OF RAMAYAN SHARMA VS.
BHEESAM KUMAR YADAV
1. Date of accident : 26.09.2013
2. Name of the injured : Sh. Ramayan Sharma @ Raman Sharma
3. Age of the injured : 27 years
4. Occupation of the injured : Labourer
5. Income of the injured : Rs.7722/- as per Minimum Wages Act
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken : W.e.f. 26.09.2013 to till date
8. Period of Hospitalization : w.e.f. 28.09.2013 to 13.10.2013 and w.e.f.
19.10.2013 to 01.11.2013
9. Whether any permanent disability ?
If yes, give details : Disability certificate containing 90% permanent disability in relation to his spine.
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss (I) Expenditure on treatment Rs.1,79,686/-
(ii) Expenditure on Rs.20,000/-
conveyance
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs.20,000/-
MACT Case No. 477591/2016 Page 36/38
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs.20,000/-
(v) Loss of earning capacity Rs. 14,17,759/-
(vi) Loss of Income Rs. 92,664/-
(vii) Any other loss which may Rs.1,00,000/- towards future treatment
require any special
treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his
life
12. Non-Pecunicary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental NIL
and physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 25,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration
(v) Loss of marriage N.A.
prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, N.A.
inconvenience, hardships,
disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and
unhappiness in future life
etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(I) Percentage of disability In the present case the petitioner has assessed and nature of suffered 90% permanent disability in disability as permanent or relation to his spine.
temporary Functional disability of the petitioner to the extent of 90% has been taken into account keeping in view the disability certificate of the petitioner.
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss N/A of expectation of life span on account of disability MACT Case No. 477591/2016 Page 37/38
(iii) Percentage of loss of Functional disability of the petitioner to the earning capacity in relation extent of 90% has been taken into to disability account keeping in view the disability certificate of the petitioner.
(iv) Loss of future income - Rs.14,17,759/-
(Income x% Earning (Rs.7722/-x12 x17 x 90/100) Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 19,25,109/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the Rs. 5,75,607.11(3 years 3 months and 26 date of award days)
17. Total amount including Rs. 25,00,716.11 interest
18. Award amount released Rs.2,25,109/-
19. Award amount kept in Rs.17,00,000/-
FDRs
20. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award the award amount to the claimant (s). (Clause 29)
21. Next date for compliance 14.11.2019 of the award. (Clause 31) ( RAJ KUMAR ) P.O. MACT (WEST-01) Delhi 03.10.2019 MACT Case No. 477591/2016 Page 38/38 MACT Cases No. 477591/16 03.10.2019 Present: None Award has been passed separately.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 14.11.2019 A copy of this award be sent to the concerned Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate as well as DSLSA as per the provisions of the MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE (MCTAP).
( RAJ KUMAR ) P.O. MACT (WEST-01) Delhi/03.10.2019 MACT Case No. 477591/2016 Page 39/38