Delhi District Court
( vs Sh. Satbir Singh S/O Sh. Sube Singh on 19 April, 2017
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. BARKHA GUPTA : : PO:
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL :
ROHINI COURTS:(NORTH WEST DISTRICT) DELHI
New No. 4941816
MACT No. : 39/09
UNIQUE ID No. : 02404C0042412009
Sh. Amit Aggarwal S/o Sh. Satya Prakash
R/o H. No. C241, Hardev Puri, Shahdara, Delhi
......(Petitioner/injured)
Versus
1. Sh. Satbir Singh S/o Sh. Sube Singh
R/o H. No. 546, Bakhtawarpur, Delhi36
......(Driver/Respondent no. 1)
2. Sh. Joginder Singh S/o Sh. Shyam Singh R/o VPO Hiranki, Delhi .......(Owner /Respondent no.2)
3. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 30/26, Above Canara Bank, Shakti Nagar, Delhi7 ....... (Insurer/Respondent no. 3) Other details: DATE OF INSTITUTION : 22.10.2007 DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 03.04.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.04.2017 MACT No.39/07 Amit Aggarwal v. Satbir Singh 1 of 29 2 AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. The petition under sections 166/140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the petitioner/injured namely Sh. Amit Aggarwal, whereby he has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 30 lakhs alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from Sh. Satbir Singh /R1, Sh. Joginder Singh/R2 and from The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd./R3 from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation of the compensation amount.
2. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the petition are that on 09.02.2007 at about 05:05 pm, the petitioner/injured Sh. Amit Aggarwal after attending the classes of Russian Language at Ramjas College, Delhi was going to board the DTC bus as plying on route no. 192, however, all of a sudden, a Blue line bus bearing registration DL1PB4098 (hereinafter referred to as the "offending vehicle") which at the relevant time was driven by Sh. Satbir Singh/R1 in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed came and it hit against the petitioner due to which the accident occurred wherein the petitioner sustained injuries. It is further submitted that PCR officials came who got the petitioner admitted in MACT No.39/07 Amit Aggarwal v. Satbir Singh 2 of 29 3 Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi from where he was further admitted in Trauma Centre in serious condition. He has further submitted that since his condition was critical, so he was further admitted in Indrprashta hospital, Delhi where he remained admitted from 13.02.2007 to 24.02.2007.
It is also submitted that FIR No.67/07 u/s 279/338 IPC was also registered at P.S. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi with respect to the said accident against R1 wherein R1 was prosecuted and the offending vehicle was also seized. The petitioner has further contended that at the relevant time, he was learning Russian language and was also preparing to join the Embassy for Govt. of India to work in Russian Language and apart from that, he also used to take tuitions from which he was earning Rs. 20,000/ per month. He has also submitted that he was having bright career ahead and after completion of his education, he could have got an alluring job and would have earned salary to the extent of Rs. 50,000/ per month. He has further submitted that he had incurred a huge amount on his medical treatment etc and due to various injuries sustained by him in the said accident, he has MACT No.39/07 Amit Aggarwal v. Satbir Singh 3 of 29 4 suffered from a lot of physical pain and mental trauma apart from financial loss. It is further stated that all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay him the compensation amount as Sh. Satbir Singh/R1 was the driver of the offending vehicle, Sh. Joginder Singh/R2 was the owner of the offending vehicle and Oriental Insurance co./R3 was the insurer of the offending vehicle from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation of the compensation amount along with interest.
3. In the case in hand, as per record, Sh. Satbir/R1, who was the driver of the offending vehicle has filed written statement wherein he has interalia stated that Sh. Joginder Singh/R2 was the owner of the offending vehicle, however, he had died and thereafter, the offending vehicle was transferred in the name of wife of Sh. Joginder Singh. He has further submitted that the offending vehicle was duly insured with Oriental Insurance co/R3 at the relevant time. He has further submitted that the said accident occurred due to sole negligence of the petitioner himself who was in a hurry to catch the DTC bus and so, in the given facts and circumstances, he is not liable to pay compensation amount to the petitioner.
MACT No.39/07 Amit Aggarwal v. Satbir Singh 4 of 29 5
4. As per record, Sh. Joginder/R2, who was the owner of offending vehicle has not filed any written statement or reply to the petition.
5. As per record, the Oriental Insurance company/R3 has filed its written statement wherein it has denied its liability to pay any compensation amount to the petitioner and has further submitted that the offending vehicle was duly insured with it in the name of Sh. Joginder Singh/R2 vide insurance policy No. 27150/2007/01320 which was valid w.e.f 06.05.2006 to 05.05.2007.
6. It needs to be discussed here that as per record, vide order dated 25.04.2008, my ld. Predecessor had observed that Sh. Joginder Singh/R2 had expired and admitted that the offending vehicle stood transferred in the name of his wife.
It also needs to be discussed here that thereafter, my ld predecessor ordered that LR's of R2 (deceased owner of the offending vehicle) be served, however, as per record none had appeared for R2 since thereafter.
7. In the case in hand, as per record, following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dt. 19.08.2010:.
MACT No.39/07 Amit Aggarwal v. Satbir Singh 5 of 29 6
1.Whether petitioner received injuries in road accident on 09.02.07 at about 05:05 pm at Kinsgway Camp, Delhi caused due to rash and negligent driving of blue line bus bearing no. DL1PB4098 being driven by R1? OPP
2.Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation as prayed, if so from which of the respondents? OPP
3. Relief.
8. In support of his case, the petitioner has examined himself as PW1 and Sh. Sanjay Chauhan (his friend) as PW2. As per record, none of the respondents have adduced any evidence.
9. I have heard final arguments as advanced by Advocate Sh. Tarun Garg, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner/injured & Advocate Sh. Lokesh Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the Oriental insurance company/R3. As per record, none has appeared for the other respondents to advance final arguments. I have also gone through the material as placed on record. Now, I proceed to discuss the issues in the succeeding paragraphs.
MACT No.39/07 Amit Aggarwal v. Satbir Singh 6 of 29 7
10.Issue No.1 "Whether petitioner received injuries in road accident on 09.02.07 at about 05:05 pm at Kinsgway Camp, Delhi caused due to rash and negligent driving of blue line bus bearing no. DL1PB4098 being driven by R1?." OPP
11.The injured/petitioner namely Sh. Amit Aggarwal in support of his case has examined himself as PW1 and has adduced his evidence by way of his affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A wherein he has also proved various documents as mentioned in it.
He has interalia testified that on 09.02.2007, when at about 05:05 pm, while he tried to board the bus near Kingsway Camp, Delhi plying at route no. 192, suddenly, Sh. Satbir Singh/R1 came driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner which hit him due to which he fell down and sustained injuries. He has further deposed that he was hospitalised by the PCR officials initially in Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi from where he was further admitted in Trauma Centre, Delhi and thereafter, he also remained admitted in Indraprastha Appollo MACT No.39/07 Amit Aggarwal v. Satbir Singh 7 of 29 8 Hospital, Delhi. The petitioner has further testified regarding his permanent disability and the amount incurred by him on his medical treatment etc which is not relevant to discuss the issue in hand.
As per record, R1 and R2, who respectively were the driver and owner of the offending vehicle have not cross examined the petitioner on any aspect at all despite opportunity given though he is the most material witness and accordingly, R1 and R2 have admitted in totality the entire version of the petitioner in totality as correct. Accordingly, they have not disputed that at the relevant date, time and place, R1 was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and while driving so, he caused the said accident wherein the petitioner sustained injuries. It is well settled law that if a witness is not cross examined on any aspect/point, then it amounts to truthfulness of the same.
In the case in hand, even at the cost of repetition, it is discussed that R1, who was the driver of the offending vehicle has not come forward in rebutting the testimony of the petitioner on any ground at all and has admitted it in totality and has also admitted that at the relevant date, MACT No.39/07 Amit Aggarwal v. Satbir Singh 8 of 29 9 time and place, R1 was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and while driving so, he caused the said accident wherein the petitioner had sustained injuries.
The petitioner was cross examined on behalf of Oriental Insurance Co./R3 during which he has stated that the said accident occurred on 09.02.2007 while he was about to board the DTC bus plying at route no. 192. It is pertinent to discuss here that rest of his cross examination revolves around the income and medical expenses incurred by the petitioner which is not relevant to discuss the issue in hand.
12. From the above cross examination of the petitioner, there is nothing on record to show even remotely if the said accident occurred due to the fault of the petitioner himself or if at all relevant date, time and place, R1 was not driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner or while driving so, he did not cause the said accident wherein the petitioner had sustained injuries in the manner as testified by the petitioner. It is pertinent to discuss here that from the testimony of the petitioner as already discussed at length, it is clearly MACT No.39/07 Amit Aggarwal v. Satbir Singh 9 of 29 10 shown on record that the said accident was caused by R1 while driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and said version of the petitioner has not been rebutted by R1 on any aspect.
13. Further, the certified copies of the criminal case record bearing FIR No.67/07 u/s 279/338 IPC P.S. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi are also placed on record which was registered regarding the said accident against R1 along with the copy of charge sheet u/s 173 Cr. PC and the copy of FIR which clearly show that R1 was prosecuted in the said case regarding causing the said accident wherein the petitioner had sustained injuries. It is nowhere shown on record or even whispered that R1 had made any complaint to anyone regarding his false implication in the present case or that he had any enmity with the petitioner or with the investigating officer and so, the possibility of false implication of R1 is ruled out. Further, there is nothing on record to suggest even remotely that R1 did not cause the said accident in the manner as narrated by the petitioner.
14. After going through the entire version of PW1 , as such, there is no reason to disbelieve him and his MACT No.39/07 Amit Aggarwal v. Satbir Singh 10 of 29 11 testimony does not seem to suffer from any inherent infirmity, artificiality or exaggeration and he seems to have testified in a coherent, cogent, convincing and truthful manner. Further, there is nothing on record to show if the said accident occurred due to rashness or negligence or fault on the part of petitioner himself. Accordingly, in view of the totality and fact and circumstances of the case, on the basis of material available on record and in view of above said discussion, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the petitioner and other material as placed on record and accordingly, Issue No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner/injured and against the respondents.
15. Issue no. 2 "Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?"OPP
16. In the case in hand, the petitioner has testified by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW1/A wherein he has also relied upon various documents as mentioned therein. He has interalia testified that he had suffered from 81% permanent physical disability and proved the said MACT No.39/07 Amit Aggarwal v. Satbir Singh 11 of 29 12 disability certificate as issued by doctors of Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Delhi in relation to his right upper limb and right lower limb as Ex. PW1/20.
It needs to be discussed that none of the respondents have challenged or disputed the said physical permanent disability certificate of the petitioner which is Ex. PW1/20 during cross examination and nothing is shown on record if the said disability certificate Ex. PW1/20 is fake, forged or fabricated or if petitioner did not suffer from the said physical permanent disability.
17. Loss of earning capacity The petitioner has interalia deposed that he had sustained injuries all over his body and had also suffered from permanent physical disability as already discussed which is not rebutted by any of the respondents. As per the said permanent physical disability certificate of the petitioner as issued from GTB Hospital which is proved as Ex. PW1/20, the petitioner had suffered from 81% permanent disability in relation to his right upper limb and right lower limb only.
18. It would be appropriate to discuss that in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr. 2011(1) SCC 343, MACT No.39/07 Amit Aggarwal v. Satbir Singh 12 of 29 13 Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed about the aspect of permanent disability and functional disability resulting in the loss of earning capacity. It has held that the compensation on account of loss of earning capacity has to be granted keeping in view the nature of work performed by the victim of motor accident and the effect of the permanent disability on his earning potential.
19. Same issue arose before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rama Swamy and Others 2012(2) T.A.C. 34 (Del.), in which the claimant had suffered from permanent disability in respect of right upper limb and right lower limb to extent of 28%. The claimant was employed as a Beldar and no evidence was produced to show that there was loss of any salary till date of his retirement. It was contended by Learned counsel for insurance that in view of case of Raj Kumar (supra), in order to get compensation for a permanent disability, it has to be established that the functional disability resulted into loss of earning capacity. It was argued that the claimant was an employee of Municipal Corporation of Delhi and there was no loss of MACT No.39/07 Amit Aggarwal v. Satbir Singh 13 of 29 14 income from date of accident till the date of his retirement and therefore, he was not entitled to any compensation under the head 'loss of earning capacity'. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has laid down that: "Government employees whether retiring from a high post or a low post, carry out their profession even after the date of superannuation provided he/she possesses good health. The permanent disability in the left upper and lower limb to the extent of 28% would definitely affect his earning capacity. In the absence of any expert evidence led by the first respondent, I would reduce the loss of earning capacity to 14 % in respect of whole body and award a compensation of Rs. 8,479/ x 12 x 9 x 14/100= 1,28,200/. The compensation is reduced from Rs.
3,13,384/ to Rs. 1,28,200/."
Admittedly, as per the petitioner himself, at the relevant time, he was working as computer faculty and was earning Rs. 7,000/ p.m. Accordingly, in the case in hand, in view of the judgments and observations of superior courts as discussed above and keeping in view the occupation of petitioner, the over all loss regarding future earning capacity of the petitioner namely Sh. Amit MACT No.39/07 Amit Aggarwal v. Satbir Singh 14 of 29 15 Aggarwal is assessed as 60% in relation to his whole body.
20. The petitioner has also placed on record the photocopy of his matriculate certificate which is not in dispute as per which, the date of birth of the petitioner is 02.06.1985 which is not challenged by any of the respondents and so, in view of above, the petitioner was about 22 years old as on the date of said accident and hence, in view of above, as per observations made in case of Sarla Verma and Others vs Delhi Transport Corporation Respondent 2009 ACJ 1298, the multiplier of '18' is applicable in the present case.
21. Loss of income The petitioner in support of his case has also examined his friend namely Sh. Sanjay Chauhan as PW2 who has adduced his evidence by way of his affidavit which is Ex. PW2/A and has also relied upon the documents as mentioned in it.
He has interalia deposed that he is friend of the petitioner and knows him since his school days and they had also studied together in Ramjas College, Delhi University. He has also deposed that at the time of said MACT No.39/07 Amit Aggarwal v. Satbir Singh 15 of 29 16 accident, the petitioner was employed as computer faculty from which he was earning Rs. 7,000/ per month and has further deposed that the petitioner was also giving tuitions from which he was earning Rs. 20,000/ per month. He has further testified that on the basis of his own education, he got a job after clearing the examination of Management Aptitute Test (MAT) and has been earning Rs. 3,00,000/ p.a. as Sales Manager, by working with Business Banking in Deutche Bank at Mumbai. He has proved his appointment letter dated 23.06.2008 as Ex. PW1/30 and his salary slip as Ex. PW1/31 showing that he was earning Rs. 30,000/ per month at the relevant time.
He was cross examined only on behalf of Oriental Insurance co/R3 during which he has stated that he and the petitioner had cleared MAT examination on the basis of which he joined PG Diploma in Financial Planning Course on the basis of which, he got the said job and has also stated that due to said accident, the petitioner could not complete his PG Diploma in Financial Planning. After going through the entire testimony of Sh. Sanjay (PW2), it is revealed that PW2 and the petitioner had MACT No.39/07 Amit Aggarwal v. Satbir Singh 16 of 29 17 cleared MAT examination on the basis of which PW2 joined PG Diploma in Finance Planning Course on which basis, he got the said job from which he was earning Rs. 30,000/ per month.
Further, from the testimony of Sh. Amit Aggarwal (PW1), it is also shown on record that PW1 had also filed the copy of result of MAT exam and proved it as Ex. PW1/27 in pursuance of which, he got three call letters from various management institutions and proved them as Ex. PW1/28. He has also clearly deposed that he could not join the said job due to various injuries sustained by him in the said accident. He has also testified that his friend Sh. Sanjay Chauhan (PW2) had also cleared the said examination after which he got a job from which he was earning Rs. 3,00,000/ p.a. and PW2 has proved the copy of his pay slip and appointment letter as Ex. PW1/30 and PW1/31 as already proved by PW1. It is pertinent to discuss here that the petitioner has also proved his salary at the relevant time as Rs. 7,000/ per month and nothing is shown on record to the contrary during the cross examinations of PWs 1 & 2 and the said documents clearly show that the petitioner had also MACT No.39/07 Amit Aggarwal v. Satbir Singh 17 of 29 18 qualified MAT examination and had also received calls letters from various management institutes which are also placed on record which are not shown to be forged or fabricated and there is nothing on record if petitioner would not have earned Rs. 3,00,000/ p.a. as is earned by his friend Sh. Sanjay Chauhan (PW2) who is similarly qualified had the petitioner not sustained injuries in the said accident which incapacitated him to join the said job. In the given facts and circumstances, it is presumed that had the petitioner not sustained said injuries, he would have earned Rs. 3,00,000/ p.a.
22. Further, as per documents Ex. PW1/7 which are the medical treatment record of the petitioner/injured which are not disputed, it is revealed that treatment of the petitioner/injured had continued for about one year and the said documents are not under challenge by any respondents and the petitioner has not filed other document of his further treatment on record and therefore, in the given facts and circumstances and on the basis of material as placed on record, the petitioner would be entitled for loss of income for one year only and accordingly, he is granted an amount of Rs.3,00,000/ MACT No.39/07 Amit Aggarwal v. Satbir Singh 18 of 29 19 towards loss of income for one year.
23. It needs to be discussed that in view of law laid down by Hon'ble High Court in the case of HDFC Ergo General Insurance Ltd. Vs. Smt. Lalta Devi and others pronounced by Hon'ble High Court on 12.01.2015 in MAC APP 189/2014 wherein Hon'ble High Court has discussed the divergent judgments given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. DTC(2009)6SCC121, Reshma Kumari & Ors Vs. Madan Mohan & Another(2013)9SCC65, Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors(2013)9SCC54 and held that since the deceased was not the salaried person, his LRs are not entitled to future prospects. In para16 of the judgment Hon'ble High Court held: "16 Further the divergence of opinion in Reshma Kumar & Ors Vs Madan Mohan & Another(2013)9SCC65 and Rajesh & Ors Vs. Rajbeer Singh & Ors(2013)9SCC54 was noticed by the Supreme Court in another latest judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pushpa & Ors : CC No. 8058/2014 decided on 02.07.2014 and in concluding paragraph while making reference to the MACT No.39/07 Amit Aggarwal v. Satbir Singh 19 of 29 20 larger bench, the Supreme Court held has under "be it noted though the decision in Reshma(Supra) was rendered at the earlier point of time, as is clear, the same has not been noticed in Rajesh(Supra) and that is why the divergent opinion has been expressed. We are of the considered opinion that as regard the manner of addition of income of future prospects, there should be an authoritative pronouncement. Therefore, we think it appropriate to refer the matter to larger bench." In para 17 & 18 Hon'ble High Court further held "17 now, the question is which of the judgment ought to be followed awaiting answer to the reference to the Supreme Court in Pushpa & Ors (Supra)".
"18 In Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community & Another Vs. State of Maharashtra & Another (2005)2SCC673 in Para 12, the Supreme Court observed as under: "12 having carefully considered the submissions made by Ld Senior Counsel for parties and having examined the law laid down by the constitution benches in the aforesaid decisions, we would like sum up the legal MACT No.39/07 Amit Aggarwal v. Satbir Singh 20 of 29 21 position in following terms"
1. The law laid down in this court in a decision delivered by bench of larger strength is binding on any subsequent bench of lesser or coequal strength.
2.[Ed.: Para 12(2) corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./21/2005 dated 332005.] A Bench of lesser quorum cannot disagree or dissent from the view of the law taken by a Bench of larger quorum. In case of doubt all that the Bench of lesser quorum can do is to invite the attention of the Chief Justice and request for the matter being placed for hearing before a Bench of larger quorum than the Bench whose decision has come up for consideration. It will be open only for a Bench of coequal strength to express an opinion doubting the correctness of the view taken by the earlier Bench of coequal strength, whereupon the matter may be placed for hearing before a Bench consisting of a quorum larger than the one which pronounced the decision laying down the law the correctness of which is doubted.
3. Ed.: Para 12(3) corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./7/2005 dated 1712005.] MACT No.39/07 Amit Aggarwal v. Satbir Singh 21 of 29 22 The above rules are subject to two exceptions: (i) the abovesaid rules do not bind the discretion of the Chief Justice in whom vests the power of framing the roster and who can direct any particular matter to be placed for hearing before any particular Bench of any strength; and
(ii) in spite of the rules laid down herein above, if the matter has already come up for hearing before a Bench of larger quorum and that Bench itself feels that the view of the law taken by a Bench of lesser quorum, which view is in doubt, needs correction or reconsideration then by way of exception (and not as a rule) and for reasons given by it, it may proceed to hear the case and examine the correctness of the previous decision in question dispensing with the need of a specific reference or the order of the Chief Justice constituting the Bench and such listing. Such was the situation in Raghubir Singh [(1989) 2 SCC 754] and Hansoli Devi[(2002) 7 SCC 273]".
In Para 20, Hon'ble High Court further observed: 20 "in UOI Vs. S.K. Kapoor, (2011)4SCC589 while holding that the decision of the coordinate bench is binding on the subsequent bench of equal strength held MACT No.39/07 Amit Aggarwal v. Satbir Singh 22 of 29 23 that the bench of coordinate strength can only make reference to the larger bench."
It was further held Para 21 & 22:
21 "This court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Harpal & Ors in MAC APP 138/2011 decided on 06.09.2013, went into this question and held that in view of the report in S.K. Kapoor(Supra), the three judge bench decision in Reshma Kumari & Ors (Supra) shall be taken as a binding precedent".
"22 Consequently it cannot be said that every person including the student would be entitled to addition of 50% towards future prospects".
24. In view of above judgments, in the case in hand, the petitioner would not be entitled for future prospects and an amount of Rs.32,40,000/ (3,00,000x18x60%) is granted towards loss of earning capacity of the petitioner to him.
25. Attendant Charges In the case in hand, though the petitioner has not examined any attendant or witness to prove the expenses incurred by him on attendant charges, but it cannot be lost sight off that his family members must have attended MACT No.39/07 Amit Aggarwal v. Satbir Singh 23 of 29 24 him during his treatment and therefore, in the case in hand, a lump amount of Rs. 50,000/ is also granted to the petitioner towards attendant charges.
26. Pain, Suffering, Conveyance and Special diet. For this purpose, the nature of injuries, the parts of the body where the injuries were sustained, surgery, if any underwent by the victim/injured/petitioner, his confinement in the hospital and the duration of his treatment are to be considered.
As per record and as already discussed, the petitioner had suffered from 60% permanent functional disability and he remained under treatment for about one year and during this period, he was unable to look after himself. As such, the testimony of the petitioner to this effect has not been challenged in his crossexamination by any of the respondents and nothing is shown on record to the contrary and as such there is no reason to disbelieve his version.
In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner in the present case, an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/ is granted to him towards his pain and sufferings and further, an amount of Rs. 25,000/ is also granted to the MACT No.39/07 Amit Aggarwal v. Satbir Singh 24 of 29 25 petitioner towards conveyance and special diet and further, an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/ towards loss of enjoyment of amenities of life is also granted to him. It also needs to be discussed here that the petitioner has also proved various documents as Ex. PW1/7 which are the medical bills and prescrpitions slips as per which, he had also incurred medical expenses to the tune of Rs. 14,39,972/ which are not disputed by either of the respondents. As such, in the given facts and circumstances, the petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs. 14,39,972/ towards medical expenses.
27. The over all compensation is tabulated as below: Sl. No Compensation under various Amount awarded heads
1. Loss of income Rs. 3,00,000/ 2 Loss of future earning capacity Rs. 32,40,000/
3. Pain and suffering Rs. 1,50,000/
4. Loss of enjoyment of amenities of Rs. 1,50,000/ life
5. Conveyance and special diet Rs. 25,000/
6. Medical expenses Rs. 14,39,972/
7. Attendant charges Rs. 50,000/ Total Rs. 53,54,972/ MACT No.39/07 Amit Aggarwal v. Satbir Singh 25 of 29 26 Accordingly the over all compensation to be granted to the petitioner thus comes to Rs.53,54,972/.
28. Issue no. 3Relief In the case in hand, the Oriental Insurance company/R3 has not been able to show anything on record that Sh. Satbir Singh/ R1, who was the driver of the offending vehicle was not having any valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle or that the permit or insurance policy of the offending vehicle was not valid at the relevant time and hence, as per settled law, since the offending vehicle was duly insured with Oriental Insurance company/R3, hence, Oriental Insurance co./R3 is liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the petitioner as per rules. Accordingly, in the case in hand, The Oriental Insurance co. Ltd. (R3) is directed to deposit with the bank of the petitioner as per details as furnished by him within 30 days from today the awarded amount of Rs.53,54,972/ alongwith interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till notice of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by Oriental MACT No.39/07 Amit Aggarwal v. Satbir Singh 26 of 29 27 Insurance co/R3 to the petitioner and his advocate and to deposit the receipt of the same with Nazir as per rules.
29. I have heard the petitioner and ld. counsel for the injured/petitioner 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: It is pertinent to discuss here that though the petitioner has submitted that 50% of awarded amount be released to him in cash however keeping in view of totality of facts and circumstances and medical expenses etc incurred by the petitioner, 40% of the awarded amount be released to the petitioner/injured out of the awarded amount in cash as per rules in his Savings bank a/c no. 35730100000432 maintained by him with Bank of Baroda, Shahdhara Branch, Delhi.
Further, though the petitioner has submitted that MACT No.39/07 Amit Aggarwal v. Satbir Singh 27 of 29 28 remaining amount be kept in two FDRs in equal proportions for a period of 2 years and 3 years in his name however, keeping in view of the directions of Hon'ble High Court, Delhi, New Delhi in the case titled as Rajesh Tyagi vs. Jasbir Singh FAO 842/2003 MAC APP 422/2009 the awarded amount has to be disbursed in phased manner, hence, the remaining awarded amount in equal proportions be kept in five FDRs in name of petitioner for a period of 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years and 5 years respectively with Bank of Baroda, Shahdhara Branch, Delhi .
30. It is further directed that the interest on the aforesaid fixed deposits shall be paid monthly by automatic credit of interest in the Saving Accounts of the petitioner/injured as per rules as per details furnished by him. Further, Original fixed deposit receipts be retained by the said bank in it safe custody, however, passbooks of the said FDRs be given to the claimant(s)/petitioner/injured along with the photocopies of the FDRs. Further, at the time of maturity of FDRs, the fixed deposit amount shall be automatically credited in the savings bank account of the claimant/petitioner/injured.
MACT No.39/07 Amit Aggarwal v. Satbir Singh 28 of 29 29 Further, no cheque books be issued to the claimant/petitioner without permission of the court, however, a photo identity cards be issued to the claimants and the withdrawal be permitted upon production of the identity card(s).
Further, the petitioner/claimant shall not have any facility of loan or advance or withdrawal without permission of the court.
Further, the said bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the saving bank account of fixed deposit accounts of the victim/claimant/injured. Further, half yearly statement of account be filed by the said bank in the Tribunal as per rules.
31. The petition/DAR is accordingly finally disposed of. 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 the open Court (BARKHA GUPTA) today i.e19.04.2017 Judge MACT (N/W) Rohini Courts, Delhi MACT No.39/07 Amit Aggarwal v. Satbir Singh 29 of 29