Delhi District Court
Smt. Roshni Devi W/O Sh. Vijay Kumar vs Sh. Naresh Kumar on 6 February, 2008
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. DILBAG SINGH
JUDGE, MACT, DELHI
Petition No. : 36/05
Date of filing of Petition : 25.01.2005
Date of conclusion of final arguments/ : 06.02.2008
Date of reservation of judgment
Date of Award : 06.02.2008
Smt. Roshni Devi W/o Sh. Vijay Kumar,
R/o D-304, Karan Vihar,
Phase-I, (Karari Extn.),
Bawana, Delhi
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Naresh Kumar,
S/o Sh. Jagdev Singh,
R/o Samalkha,
Distt. Panipat, Haryana
2. Sh. Jai Parkash,
S/o Sh. Jaswant Singh,
R/o H. No. 80, Ward No.4,
Behind Bansal Factory, Mata
Mandir Road, Beniwal Mohalla,
Samalkha, Distt. Panipat,
Haryana.
3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
2
5th Floor, Tower-II, Jeevan Bharti Bldg.,
124, Connaught Place, New Delhi.
.....Respondents
AWARD 1 By this award I shall dispose of a petition U/s 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 as amended upto date (herein after referred to as the Act), wherein a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- has been claimed on account of the injuries sustained in a vehicular accident.
2 Brief facts as cullable from the records of the petition are : On 19.12.2004 at about 8.30 AM, petitioner was standing at Piyo Maniyari and was conversing with driver of maruti car who had hit the bus in which she was travelling. She was standing amidst stationary maruti car and bus. A truck bearing no. HR- 07-2211 coming towards Delhi hit the maruti car, as a result of which she was sandwiched between maruti car and bus. She sustained serious grievous injuries. Case FIR No. 175/04 U/s 279/337/338 IPC was registered at police station Kundli against Sh. Naresh Kumar. Respondent no.1 is the driver, 3 respondent no.2 is the owner and respondent no.3 is the insurer of truck bearing no. HR-07-2211.
3 Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents who appeared and contested the claim petition. Respondent no.1 in his written statement has taken preliminary objections concerning maintainability of the petition viz-a-viz petition being nothing, but a harassing tactic to extort huge money, petition being non-maintainable on account of concealment of facts, vehicle being validly insured and accident not taking place due to negligence of respondent no.1. In para-wise reply on merits registration of case against respondent no.1 has been stated to be as a matter of record, meaning thereby that the same is admitted. Respondent no.2 has taken the similar objections on the lines of respondent no.1.
4 Respondent no.3 in its written statement has taken usual statutory objections concerning breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy. Fact of truck no. HR-07-2211 being insured in the name of respondent no.2 vide policy no. 353600/31/04/01117 with validity period from 16.07.2004 to 4 15.07.2005 (date of accident 19.12.2004), has been admitted. Compensation claimed has been stated to be very excessive. 5 From the pleadings of the parties, on 25.04.2005, my Ld. Predecessor framed the following issues :
1. Whether the claimant Smt. Roshni Devi sustained grievous injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of Truck No. HR-07-2211 by respondent no.1?
2. Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation. If so, what amount and against whom?
3. Relief.
6 Petitioner in support of her case has examined herself as PW-1, Sh. Robin as PW-2 and Dr. Rajesh Bedi as PW-3. Petitioner has proved her affidavit as Ex. PW1/X and documents as Ex. PW1/1 to PW1/79. PW-2 Sh. Robin is the Record Clerk from St. Stephen Hospital who has proved the records concerning petitioner, having been prepared by St. Stephen Hospital, in connection with treatment of petitioner. He has proved the documents as Ex. PW2/A to PW2/D. PW-3 5 Dr. Rajesh Bedi has proved about the manner in which petitioner was treated at St. Stephen Hospital. 7 Respondents on the other hand have examined Sh. Jaipal Singh as R3W1 in connection with the medical bills having been prepared by him.
8 Arguments were heard at the bar. Ld. counsel Sh. U.C. Rai for the petitioner and counsel Ms. Dimple Arora for the insurance company have been heard at length. Respondent no.1 and 2 were proceeded exparte during the course of proceedings by my Ld. Predecessor on 05.07.2006 in view of their continued absence on many previous dates.
9 I have carefully perused the records of the case and considered the submissions. My issue-wise findings are as follows :
6
Issue No.1.
10 Petitioner in para no.1 of Ex. PW1/X has testified in consonance with her assertions of the petition. She was not cross-examined by respondent no.1 and 2 and for this reason it can be said that rashness and negligence has been proved by the petitioner. Ignoring this aspect, I have perused the cross-examination of insurance company concerning rashness and negligence. During cross-examination this witness has stood the test of cross-examination. She has stated that the truck came from behind and hit her. She has also stated that she had seen the truck a few seconds prior to the accident and had moved on one side thinking that the truck will pass through but it rammed into maruti car. She has further reaffirmed, during cross-examination, that maruti car was stationary on one side of the road. She has clarified that there was no fog or smoke. She also disclosed that after being hit she was conscious for few seconds and had seen that the driver of the truck had tried to flee away, but he was apprehended. The above discussion of cross-examination reveals that petitioner 7 has stood the test of cross-examination, having been conducted by respondent no.3 in connection with rashness and negligence. No suggestion was given to this witness concerning her assertion of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the truck and testimony in this regard has remained un-assailed and un-controverted. So in view of the above going discussion also, it has to be held that petitioner has proved rashness and negligence.
11 Petitioner has placed on record the records of criminal case. Ex. PW1/71 is the FIR which has been lodged at the instance of the petitioner. In the FIR rashness and negligence has been imputed on the driver of the truck, by the petitioner. Other records of the criminal case go to show that respondent no.1 was arrested in the criminal case and was challaned. This fact corroborates the version of the petitioner discussed above. Respondent no.1 has not stepped in the witness box and an adverse inference has to be drawn against him concerning rashness and negligence on his part. Reliance is placed on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dhanesh Kumar and ors. reported in I (1994) ACC 561. (DHC). 8 12 In view of the above going discussion I have no hitch in observing that petitioner has proved the issue regarding rashness and negligence.
Issue No.2.
13 Assessment of compensation in an injury case is not easy if not difficult. The Tribunal has to award 'just' compensation. The word 'just' is very wide and enjoins a duty on the Tribunal to place the petitioner in the position in which he was before the accident. I am not burdening the judgment with the reproduction of the mandates of precedents in this regard. I deem it sufficient to make a reference to observations of Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.K. Mahajan reported in 2006 ACJ 77, observations of Karnataka High Court in K. Jagannath Rao Vs. Gangarathna C. Bai and others reported in 2004 ACJ 982, (Karnataka) and Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadeva Shetty and another, III 2003 ACC 57 (SC); AIR 2003 SC 4172, which are worth reading and I shall be guided by the principles in 9 assessment of compensation. I shall also be guided by other settled practices and will try to strike a balance between two principles of not awarding of meager compensation and excessive compensation i.e. I shall keep my assessment within the above mentioned brackets i.e. above than meagre and less than excess.
14 My head-wise assessment of compensation follows :
Treatment Expenses
15 Counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments has submitted that he has placed on record bills to the tune of Rs. 2,56,884/- and has requested for award of the amount of Rs. 2,56,884/- under the head of treatment expenses. Counsel Ms. Dimple Arora on the other hand has disputed the treatment bills having been issued by J.D. Medicos. She has argued that the bills having been issued by J.D. Medicos cannot be paid as the same are not born out from the prescriptions. She has submitted that petitioner has managed the above mentioned bills and exaggerated the amount of treatment expenses. The bills of St. Stephen 10 Hospital to the tune of Rs. 1,22,813/- have not been disputed. Counsel Sh. Anshuman Bal for the claimant has submitted that bills issued by J.D. Medicos are genuine and medicines were purchased in actual. It was submitted that instead of going to St. Stephen Hospital time and again, the treatment prescribed was repeated in consultation with local doctors. He also submitted that some medicines were not available and in lieu thereof equivalents were obtained.
16 Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that daughter of petitioner had appeared before me and submitted to the same effect. Counsel for the petitioner has also stated that petitioner had appeared before me on a wheel chair. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has suffered 60% disability and in the circumstances bills of J.D. Medicos were genuine. My attention was also drawn towards the statement of Sh. Jaipal Singh, proprietor of J.D. Medicos. 17 I have carefully perused the records of the case and considered the submissions. Sh. Jaipal Singh as R3W1 has testified that the bills were issued by him on payment and on 11 the prescriptions of St. Stephen Hospital. He has also submitted that a sum of Rs. 1,22,813/- was paid on behalf of the petitioner to him on account of the medicines. Testimony of R3W1 is sufficient to observe that petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 1,22,813/- in addition to Rs. 1,34,071/-. The explanation given by the daughter of petitioner and counsel appears to me to be appealable to reason. It does happen in case of illiterate people that they prefer to seek the advise at local level and take the equivalent of the medicines in case of its non- availability. Nothing has been shown on behalf of insurance company that medicines which are subject matter of dispute (medicines purchased from J.D. Medicos), were not the equivalent of the medicines which were prescribed by St. Stephen Hospital. Medical history of the petitioner goes to show that she remained admitted for considerable period. It has also come on record that her disability has been opined to be 60%. It has also come on record that she had come to the court on wheel chair. It has also come on record that two more operations are to take place. Claimant has already undergone inpatientship period from 19.12.2004 to 10.01.2005 (24 days), 15.02.2005 to 15.02.2005 (1 day), 19.03.2005 to 22.03.2005 (4 12 days), 06.05.2005 to 16.05.2005 (11 days) and 22.07.2005 to 09.08.2005 (19 days). Total indoor treatment is for 59 days i.e. two months. In the orders dated 27.09.2005 there is court observation of my Ld. Predecessor to the effect that in both lower limb fixators were attached. On 01.08.2007 Smt. Roshni Devi appeared before me on a wheel chair and it was submitted before me that she has been operated upon on eight occasions. There were sufficient visible marks of operations on the legs of Smt. Roshni Devi. These facts show about the continuity of the treatment. Therefore, I deem it expedient to award the entire amount towards treatment expenses as so claimed by the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 2,56,884/- (say Rs. 2,57,000/-).
Loss of earning 18 I have already mentioned about indoor patientship period in the above head. Disability of the petitioner has been shown as 60%. For arriving at a proper conclusion it will be appropriate to have a look at the documents. Ex. PW1/79 is MLC which is a document prepared soon after the accident, reveals that Smt. Roshni Devi was admitted in the Hospital on 13 19.12.2004 with alleged history of RTA. She was in shock at the time of examination. On examination it was found that she had suffered compound fracture of left leg in the shape of a degloving injury. She had also sustained fracture of both bones of right feet.
19 Discharge summary dated 11.01.2005 gives the diagnosis as poly trauma with open fracture Grade IIIA Lt. Upper fibula and lateral tibial condyle with open grade II fracture both bone right proximal leg with fracture distal end Lt. Femur. As per operation procedure external fixator of left femur was done on 26.12.2004. In complaint and history it stands mentioned that Smt. Roshni was having main complaints of degloving injury of both lower limbs, pain in both lower limbs and severe bleeding. It also stands mentioned that there was no previous history of any chronic illness. In clinical findings it stands mentioned that pelvic compression test was negative and Smt. Roshni Devi had suffered puncture wound, tenderness, crepitus, with abnormal mobility present over anterior aspect of right mid leg, degloving injury over the medial and posterior aspect of right knee. It also mentions 14 about tenderness, crepitus, abnormal mobility present upto distal 1/3rd left femur. It also mentions that huge degloving injury (an injury in which bones become visible) over the medial and posterior and lateral aspect of knee extending upto distal 1/3rd right leg medial aspect. It also records that B/L posterior tibial and Dorslis pedis artery palpable. 20 Discharge summary dated 23.03.2005 goes to show that the injuries sustained by the petitioner were being treated and external fixators were there. Other medical documents also go to show about treatment of the petitioner. Last document placed on record about treatment are dated 06.02.2007 and 24.02.2007. These are the discharge summaries. In the discharge summaries for 06.02.2007, it stands mentioned that IM Nailing DEPUY 11 x 34 was done on 30.01.2007. Discharge summary of 24.03.2007 reveals that sequestrectomy and curettage of left tibial was done on 21.02.2007.
21 Armed with the above mentioned medical documents and appearance of petitioner on 01.08.2007, Sh. U.C. Rai 15 argued that 100% loss of earning be given upto 01.01.2007. He has also submitted that disability @ 60% be given thereafter. I am of the considered view that loss of earning in this case should be given to the petitioner @ 100% for a period of three years for the reason that she has remained completely disabled to earn during this period.
22 Next question which will immediately arise is as to at what rate the loss of earning for a period of three year is to be calculated. In this connection, petitioner has claimed her income in the petition as Rs. 10,000/- per month out of her self employment, being the owner of bus no. PB-01-4249. In the affidavit Ex. PW1/X, in para no.3 Smt. Roshni Devi has reiterated her assertion of earning of Rs. 10,000/- per month. In cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for Insurance Company she has categorically admitted that she cannot show any document by virtue of which it can be shown that she was registered owner of bus no. PB-01-4249. She volunteered that she had sold the bus in order to meet the expenses of her medical treatment. She was asked about payment of income tax, to which she neither affirmed nor denied. She admitted 16 that she cannot show any document evidencing that she was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month as earnings from the bus. 23 In view of the above categorical admission concerning inability to show documentary proof, resort to minimum wages is the only option left. Petitioner should have produced the previous records of the bus by virtue of which she could have established the ownership of the bus in the past and matter would have been different then.
Tribunal has to assess the income on the basis of the evidence led and not on assumptions. In Meena Variyal's case Hon'ble Supreme Court has deprecated the tendency of Tribunal of swaying out of sympathy and has mandated that adverse inference be drawn where the petitioner does not lead the evidence which it can do. In view of answers of PW-1 in cross-examination, counsel for the petitioner had conceded that income has to be calculated on the basis of minimum wages of a skilled worker. It is not in dispute now that housewife has to be considered as a skilled worker in case there is no other proof of the income of the housewife. 17 Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur reported in 2005 ACJ 942 titled as Balwanti Devi and others Vs. Surjit Singh and others. 24 Accident took place on 19.12.2004. Minimum wages of a skilled worker as on 19.12.2004 were Rs. 3,318.90 ps. (say Rs. 3,400/-). Total loss of earning sustained by the injured during the period of three years comes to Rs. 1,22,400/- (3,400 x 12 x 3 = 1,22,400) (say Rs. 1,23,000/-).
Disability 25 Petitioner in context of this head has placed on record her disability certificate having been issued by Hindu Rao Hospital. A perusal of the same reveals that petitioner has suffered 60% disability of lower limbs. That she had sustained injury on left thigh and left leg. It is also mentioned that she had sustained fracture of BBE. She was also suffering from stiffness. Disability has been opined to be permanent. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the injured is a housewife and has been disabled with respect to her lower 18 limbs, disability be treated as 60% for the whole body for the reason that Smt. Roshni Devi will not be in a position to do the house hold chores. He has also argued that she will not be in a position to do the transport business and from that aspect also she is entitled to 60% disability of the body at the least. Counsel for insurance company Ms. Dimple Arora on the other hand has refuted the assertions of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that disability cannot be given more than the extent of 30% with respect to whole body. She also argued that in the absence of examination of doctors who issued disability certificate, contention of award of 60% disability cannot be allowed.
26 I have carefully considered the submissions. Although petitioner has not been in a position to prove that she was in the transport business, but the facts narrated by her do not completely rule out the possibility. At the same time argument of Ms. Dimple Arora qua non-examination of disability certificate issuing doctors cannot be brushed aside. Non- examination has to go against the petitioner and self serving assertion of 60% cannot be believed in toto. Assertion of Ld. 19 Counsel for petitioner to the effect that disability is 60% of the whole body also cannot be completely brushed aside. The reason is that job of housewife is a tedious job and cannot be done properly in the situation in which the petitioner is placed. Various factors have to be taken into consideration while ascertaining disability. To name some of them :- the over all disability, the nature of the job which the injured was doing before accident, probable avocation in which the injured can employ herself, educational qualifications, skills of the injured, nature of injury, its likely hood of being treated, age of the injured, facts and circumstances of each case etc. etc. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that disability can be taken as 45% of the whole body in the present case;
27 Income of the petitioner has already been decided. Since the minimum wages of the petitioner would have increased with passage of time as is evident from perusal of past record of minimum wages provision for neutralization has to be made. It is common knowledge that minimum wages also keep on increasing as so also argued by Ld. Counsel for 20 the petitioner. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a judgment of our Hon'ble High Court delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog bearing F.A.O number 396/01 decided on 15.01.2007, wherein it has been held that schedule of minimum wages is a cogent evidence of future prospects. Therefore, assumed income of the petitioner is calculated as follows : 3400 + 6800 divided by 2 = 5100/-. In assessing the assumed income I have applied the formula as so applied by Hon'ble Supreme Court in G.M., Kerala S.R.T.C. V/s Susamma Thomas, 1994(2) S.C.C. 176: 1994(1) T.A.C
323. 28 Next question which requires determination is the multiplier to be applied. For ascertainment of multiplier age of the petitioner is one of the relevant criteria. In the petition she has given her age as 38 years. In her affidavit Ex. PW1/X, she has given her age as 38 years. During cross-examination her version concerning her age has remained unchallenged and uncontroverted. On perusal of the photocopies of the documents placed on record it was revealed that photocopy of 21 Election I Card is there. As per the same age of Smt. Roshni Devi was 28 years on 01.01.1994. Accident has taken place in 2004. So her version of her age being 38 years is in consonance with the documentary evidence which was got prepared much before the accident. Therefore, there is no hitch in taking the age as 38 years.
29 I deem it pertinent to mention that legislature while enacting the Schedule had taken care of future prospects and it stands the scrutiny of English precedents. Under English Law maximum multiplier which is applied is that of
16. Hon'ble Supreme Court for this reason in numerous judgments has reduced the multiplier in cases where future prospects have been given and otherwise also. To say in substance the situation shall remain the same if multiplier as per English precedents is applied and future prospects are given and multiplier as per Schedule is applied and future prospects are not awarded. This is evidenced by the following judgments. In Tamil Nadu 22 State Transport Corporation Vs. S. Rajapriya and others reported in AIR 2005 SC 2965, multiplier of 12 was applied in case of deceased being 38 years of age. As per Schedule multiplier is 16. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman Ayer and another reported in 2004 ACJ 53, the multiplier of 10 was applied by Hon'ble Supreme Court when the age of the father and mother was 47 and 43 years respectively. As per Schedule multiplier is 15. In Sarla Dixit and others Vs. Balwant Yadav reported in 2996 ACJ 581, deceased was of 27 years of age and multiplier of 16 was applied with an indication that that it was on higher side. As per Schedule multiplier is 18. In Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. K.L. Bindu and others reported in IV (2005) ACC 825 (SC), multiplier of 13 was applied in case of deceased being 33 years of age. As per Schedule multiplier is 17 and In U.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation Vs. Krishna Bala and others reported in III (2006) ACC 361, multiplier of 13 was 23 applied in the case of deceased being 36 years of age. As per Schedule multiplier is 16.
30 Keeping into view all the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the legal position discussed above suitable multiplier in the present case is that of 13. Therefore total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 5100 x 12 x 13 = 7,95,600/- and 45% of the same comes to Rs. 3,57,920 (say Rs. 3,58,000/-).
Pain and sufferings 31 Counsel for the petitioner has argued vehemently that petitioner should be paid a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- under the head of non-pecuniary damages as was so done by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Vijay Kumar Mittal and others reported in 2007 (3) T.A.C. 397 (Del.). Counsel Ms. Dimple Arora for the respondents has submitted that the case relied upon is distinguishable as there was an amputation of right leg below the knee in that case. I have considered the submissions made by respondents side. I find force in the argument of Ms. 24 Dimple Arora for the reason that there was amputation of right leg below knee in the case placed reliance upon by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner. In the present case I have already detailed about the condition of the petitioner. She appeared in the court on a wheel chair during the course of trial and even during the course of arguments. There were many scars on her legs having been sustained on account of numerous operations carried on her. Assertion of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner to the effect that petitioner has been operated upon on numerous occasions has not been seriously disputed and could not have been disputed. In Ex. PW1/X Smt. Roshni Devi has stated that rods have been inserted in her legs and she has been operated on five occasions. In the circumstances there is no hitch in observing that petitioner must have undergone enormous pain and sufferings. Making a balance between the respective versions put forth and considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it expedient to award a sum of Rs. 90,000/- under the head of pain and sufferings.
25
Loss of amenities of life 32 Petitioner on account of accidental injuries has suffered loss of amenities of life. She is not in a position to walk properly since suffering of the accident. She will also not in a position to do so in future. I have already detailed about her precarious condition and therefore, I have no hitch in awarding a sum of Rs. 70,000/- towards loss of amenities of life.
Attendant, conveyance charges and special diet 33 Petitioner in her petition has not mentioned about sustainment of expenses under the head of attendant charges. In her affidavit Ex. PW1/X she has testified that she had to engage an attendant @ Rs. 1500/- per month from the date of accident till six months after 24.08.2005. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has claimed attendant charges for a period of three years. I have perused the records of the case. Petitioner has remained as an indoor patient for a period of two months. Thereafter also she has remained under treatment for a 26 considerable period. Petitioner has not produced any proof concerning engagement of attendant. No attendant has been examined. In the circumstances self serving assertion of the petitioner towards payment of Rs. 1500/- per month upto the date of trial cannot be believed.
34 Petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. 30,000/- on conveyance. She has not placed on record any bill. Although she has stated that she had to come in an Ambulance, for the reason that no bills regarding conveyance have been placed on record, self serving assertion of the petitioner towards conveyance to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- cannot be accepted and the same has to be given on an estimation basis. Petitioner is a resident of Nangloi and has obtained her treatment at St. Stephen Hospital. She must have visited more than five times to St. Stephen Hospital in view of the fact that five operations have taken place. She must also have come for follow up treatment and number of visits to St. Stephen Hospital can be taken as more than ten. Family members of the petitioner also must have spent on conveyance charges. However, in the absence of categorical evidence under 27 pecuniary head, estimation comes into play. 35 Petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. 30,000/- under the head of special diet. As discussed above, under this head also no prescription has been brought to my notice. Therefore, estimation comes into play.
Keeping in view the discussion carried above, coupled with the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it expedient to award a consolidated sum of Rs. 45,000/- under the heads of special diet, conveyance and attendant charges.
Future treatment 36 During the course of arguments Ld. Counsel for the petitioner argued that two operations of the petitioner are to take place. Dr. Rajesh Bedi testified that two other fractures in left femur and right tibia have not yet united. On account of financial difficulties petitioner is not getting her treatment from St. Stephen Hospital and has started getting herself treated from local doctors of Nangloi. In view of the testimony of Dr. Rajesh Bedi and petitioner coupled with medical record, it is 28 inferable that petitioner will require future treatment as so also argued by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner. No doubt estimate has not been submitted, the situation with respect to non- submission of estimation stands explained by the conduct of the petitioner who on account of financial difficulties stands compelled to obtain treatment of local doctors even at the cost of her life. Keeping in view the expenses having been incurred on treatment, I am of the view that it will be appropriate in the present case to award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- under the head of future treatment. Argument of Ms. Dimple Arora, Ld. Counsel for the respondents is not tenable qua non-allowance of future treatment in the absence of estimate, in the present case in view of peculiar facts of the case wherein a lady has become helpless and stands compelled to obtain treatment from near her residence. Accordingly submission of Ms. Dimple Arora, Ld. Counsel for insurance company is disallowed. 37 The amounts of compensation assessed under the different heads are being chunked together herein below : -
1 Treatment expenses : Rs. 2,57,000/- 29 2 Loss of earning : Rs. 1,23,000/- 3 Disability : Rs. 3,58,000/- 4 Pain and Sufferings : Rs. 90,000/- 5 Loss of amenities of life : Rs. 70,000/- 6 Special diet, conveyance and : Rs. 45,000/-
attendant charges.
7 Future treatment : Rs. 50,000/-
__________________
Total : Rs. 9,93,000/-
__________________
Relief
38 I, therefore, pass an award for a sum of Rs. 9,93,000/-
in favour of petitioner and against the respondents. Petitioner shall also be entitled to interest @ 7% p.a. w.e.f. date of filing of petition till realization in view of Section 171 of the Act. Petitioner is directed to keep a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- in Fixed Deposit in a nationalized bank for a period of ten years from today with no facility of loan, premature withdrawal, mortgage etc. 30 Liability to pay 39 Liability to pay is fastened on respondent no. 3, The New India Assurance Company Ltd., as offending vehicle was insured with respondent no. 3 for third party risks and no breach of terms and conditions has been proved by respondent no. 3 by virtue of which it could have avoided its liability. The payment shall be made within a period of 30 days from today by respondent no.3, failing which this Tribunal shall be constrained to take harsh steps.
40 A copy of the award be supplied to all the sides free of cost for necessary compliance.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court Dated : 6th February, 2008.
(DILBAGH SINGH) Judge/MACT:Delhi