Delhi District Court
Priyanka Sharma vs . Ashish Singhal & Ors. on 31 August, 2022
Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF MS. JASJEET KAUR, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI
COURTS, DELHI
New No.44933316
UNIQUE ID No. : DLNW010000502011
Ms. Priyanka Sharma, D/o Sh. B.N. Sharma,
R/o CP215, Maurya Enclave,
Delhi.
........ Petitioner/claimant
Vs.
1. Sh. Ashish Singhal, S/o Sh. Ved Prakash,
R/o 241, Rajdhani Enclave,
Pitam Pura, Delhi.
....... Drivercumowner/R1
2. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.
IFFCO Sadan, C1, District Centre, Saket,
New Delhi.
....... Insurance co./R2
.......... Respondents
Other details
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 28.09.2011
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 20.08.2022
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.08.2022
FORM - V
1. COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE
AWARD AS PER FORMAT REFERRED IN THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN FAO 842/2003 RAJESH TYAGI
Vs. JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018.
Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 1 Of 48
Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
1. Date of the accident 25.07.2011
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the 28.09.2011
investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the 28.09.2011
investigating officer to the insurance company.
4. Date of filing of Report under section 173 Cr.P.C. N/A
before the Metropolitan Magistrate
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information 28.09.2011
Report (DAR) by the investigating Officer before
Claims Tribunal
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance 28.09.2011
Company
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). 28.09.2011
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? Yes
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed No
later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the documents Yes
filed with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the No
part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether
any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by 28.09.2011
the insurance Company.
13. Name, address and contact number of the Sh. Amit Gaurav
Designated Officer of the Insurance Company. Singh, Advocate
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Insurance No
Company submitted his report within 30 days of
the DAR? (Clause 22)
15. Whether the insurance company admitted the No
liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of
the insurance company fairly computed the
compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the No
part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance
Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 2 Of 48
Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
Company? If so, whether any action/direction
warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer of N/A
the Insurance Company .
18. Date of the Award 31.08.2022
19. Whether the award was passed with the consent No
of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes
saving bank account(s) near their place of
residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed 20.04.2019
to open saving bank account (s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN Card and Aadhar
Card and the direction to the bank not issue any
cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and
make an endorsement to this effect on the
passbook(s).
22. Date on which the claimant (s) produced the 04.09.2021
passbook of their saving bank account near the
place of their residence along with the
endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the Claimant(s) As mentioned above
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Ms. Priyanka Sharma
claimant(s) and the address of the bank with IFSC savings bank a/c
Code No.171000010141882
2 with Punjab National
Bank, Pitam Pura
Shopping Complex
Branch, Delhi
IFSC : PUNB0171000
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank account(s) Yes
is near his place of residence?
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the Yes
time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their
financial condition.
27. Account number/CIF No, MICR number, IFSC 86143654123,
Code, name and branch of the bank of the Claims 110002427,
Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 3 Of 48
Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
Tribunal in which the award amount is to be SBIN0010323, SBI,
deposited/transferred. (in terms of order dated Rohini Courts, Delhi
18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in FAO
842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh.
JUDGMENT
1. The present claim proceedings have emanated from a Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred to as DAR) filed on 28.09.2011 with reference to FIR No.287/11 registered at PS Subhash Place in respect of commission of offences of causing hurt by rash and negligent driving of a motor vehicle on a public road punishable U/s 279/338 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) wherein subsequent charge sheet for the alleged commission of the aforementioned offences punishable u/s 279/338 IPC against driver Sh. Ashish Singhal was also filed in respect of grievous hurt sustained by one Ms. Priyanka Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the victim/the injured/the petitioner/the claimant) in a road traffic accident. The learned Predecessor Court had vide order dated 04.11.2011 treated the DAR as petition u/s 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'M.V. Act').
2. The brief facts of the case as discernible from the DAR and the documents filed along with DAR are that on 25.07.2011 at about 5.00 p.m, the petitioner was standing behind metallic railing near Delhi Metro Pillar No.337 facing the road from Wazirpur and going towards Madhuban Chowk for the purpose of crossing the road, when one car bearing registration No.DL3CBR4272 (hereinafter referred to as the "offending vehicle") being driven in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed by Ashish Singhal (hereinafter referred to as the driver of the offending vehicle/Respondent No.1/R1) had hit against the cemented divider of the road before smashing the metallic railing installed between two consecutive pillar of metro and thereby also smashing the petitioner against Delhi Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 4 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
Metro pillar as a consequence of which, the petitioner had fell down on road and had sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner was immediately removed by PCR Van to Saroj Hospital at Madhuban Chowk, Delhi, where she was medically examined vide MLC No.3343/11 dated 25.07.2011 wherein it had been mentioned that the petitioner had sustained crush injuries in her right leg below knee level with loss of tissues and exposure of crushed bones and muscles along with pain, swelling and deformity in left thigh as well as a large lacerated wound over left leg and also a punctured wound on left eye. Besides, as per her Xray report No.225482 dated 25.07.2011, the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries due to fracture of right femur. However, subsequently the petitioner had left Saroj Hospital against medical advise on 28.07.2011 and in the Left Against Medical Advice Summary(LAMA) summary of the petitioner issued by Saroj Hospital it was mentioned that the petitioner had sustained fracture in left femur with left tibia and left ankle. Besides, as per the discharge summary of the petitioner, she had remained admitted at Delhi Institute of Trauma and Orthopedics, Sant Parmanand Hospital, 18, Sham Nath Marg, Civil Lines, Delhi 54, with effect from 28.07.2011 and was discharged from the said hospital on 26.08.2011 after under going various surgeries including surgery for external fixator implantation in left tibia with wound debriment undergone on 30.07.2011, open reduction and internal fixation surgery (ORIF) with locking compression plate (LCP) implantation for fracture shaft of femur in left leg and open reduction internal fixation(ORIF) with 1/3rd tubular plate implantation for management of fracture of left distal third fibula and fixation with cancellous screw implantation for management of fracture of left medial malleolus as well as right ankle knee trans femoral amputation through fracture performed on 01.08.2011 as well as Soleus muscle flap coverage surgery with split skin grafting done on 08.08.2011.
3. R1/Sh. Ashish Singhal, who was the driver as well as the owner of the Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 5 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
offending vehicle had failed to file any written statement despite sufficient time being given to him for filing of the same. Subsequently, R1 had expired on 16.06.2014 leaving behind his four legal heirs, that is, his brother Sh. Anuj Singhal and his sisters, namely, Smt. Sarita Mittal, Smt. Seema Bansal and Smt. Meenakshi Mittal, who had been impleaded as legal representatives (LR's) of deceased R1 vide order dated 20.04.2019.
4. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the respondent No.2/R2) had filed a written statement wherein it had been claimed that the petitioner had not approached this Court with clean hands and had concealed relevant facts from this Court. Through its written statement R2 had sought liberty to avail all defences available to it U/s 170 Motor Vehicle Act and 149(2) of Motor Vehicle Act, if in case R1 would fail to contest the claim on merits or it was found at any stage during investigation or trial that R1 was in collusion with the petitioner/victim of the case accident. It had been prayed in the written statement of R2 that R2 may not be held liable to pay any amount of compensation to the victim, if it was found during investigation or trial that the alleged offending vehicle was not involved in the case accident and accordingly R2 had also sought liberty to add, alter and amend its written statement as and when any new facts material to the claim petition would come to light. R2 had otherwise admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with it in the name of R1 vide insurance policy No75268045 having its validity period commencing on 20.01.2011 to 10.01.2012.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Predecessor Court vide order dated 12.03.2015: (1) Whether on 25.07.2011 at about 5:00 pm, at the road leading towards Wazirpur to Madhuban Chowk, Road No.41, near Pillar No.337, near Metro Station Kohat Enclave, Delhi, one Hundai Accent Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 6 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
car bearing registration No.DL3CBR4272, which was being driven rashly and negligently by Ashish Singhal and hit Priyanka Sharma and caused injuries to her?
2). Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
6. Petitioner/claimant had examined herself as PW1, Sh. Bhaskar Nand Sharma, father of the petitioner as PW2, Ms. Ekta Sharma, Senior Prosthetist and Orthotist from Otto Bock Health Care India, New Delhi as PW3, Inspector Lalit Kumar, the investigating officer (IO) of the present matter as PW4, Sh. Ankush Chaturvedi, an officer from Human Resource Teleperformance Global Services Pvt. Ltd. as PW5, Dr. Ashish Goyal, Senior Specialist(Orthopedics) from Dr. Baba Sahib Ambedkar Hospital (in short referred to as Dr. BSA Hospital) as PW6 and Mr. Jayesh Sharma, Managing Director of M/s Alora Promotors Pvt. Ltd as PW7 in support of her case. No other witness was examined by the petitioner in support of her version of the case.
6.1 LRs of R1 as well as R3/insurance company had not examined any witness in support of their respective version of the case.
7. I have heard the final arguments addressed by Sh. Sudhir Vats, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Amit Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for R2/insurance co. None had appeared on behalf of LR's of R1 to address final arguments. My issue wise findings based on my appreciation of the evidence led by the parties in support of their respective versions of the case are reproduced herein below:
8. Issue wise findings: ISSUE No. 1 (1) Whether on 25.07.2011 at about 5:00 PM at the road leading Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 7 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
towards Wazirpur to Madhuban Chowk, Road No.41, near Pillar No.337, near Metro Station Kohat Enclave, Delhi, one Hundai Accent car bearing registration no.DL3CBR4272, which was being driven rashly and negligently by Ashish Singhal and hit Priyanka Sharma and caused injuries to her?
The onus of proving this issue beyond preponderance of probabilities was upon the petitioner.
8.1 The petitioner had examined herself as PW1 by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A wherein she had deposed that after completion of B.A. (Pass) Course from University of Delhi in the year 1998 Advanced Diploma Course of three years duration in Interior Designing from Meera Bai Womens' Polytechnic, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi in the year 1995, as well as after completing a Diploma Course in AutoCAD, she had joined the corporate field for management and administrative work as Assistant Manager at Serco B.P.O. Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon on 9th August, 2010. She deposed that she had successfully completed several management training programmes with meritious appreciations therein and due to her outstanding results and experience, she had been offered a job for the post of Consultant Designer by M/s Alora Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad on a monthly salary of Rs.28,000/ with incentives and accordingly, she had resigned from her earlier employment with effect from 13.07.2011 where she had been earning Rs.16,103/ per month plus incentives till 14.07.2011. She stated that on on 25.07.2011 at about 5.00 p.m, the petitioner was standing behind metallic railing near Metro Pillar No.337 facing the road from Wazirpur towards Madhuban Chowk for the purpose of crossing the road, when one car bearing registration No.DL3CBR4272 being driven in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed by R1 had hit against the cemented divider of the road before smashing the metallic railing installed between two consecutive pillars of Delhi Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 8 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
Metro and had thereby also smashed her against the said pillar of Delhi Metro as a consequence of which, she had fell down on road and had sustained injuries for treatment of which she had been taken by a PCR Van to Saroj Hospital at Madhuban Chowk, Delhi where she was medically examined vide MLC No.3343/11 dated 25.07.2011. She stated that she had sustained crush injuries in her right leg which was amputated as she had suffered loss of soft tissues and her crushed bones and muscles were exposed causing, severe pain and deformity on both thighs. Besides, she had sustained large lacerated wounds and punctured wounds all over body due to the accident. She deposed that she had remained under intensive medical treatment with effect from 25.07.2011 onward at Sant Parmanand Hospital for which she had incurred a sum of Rs.20,48,000/ as medical expenses. She further deposed that due to the amputation of her right leg the medical experts had fixed an artificial limb in lieu thereof and she would have to remain dependent on the artificial limb which would require periodical replacement to keep it in standard condition of mobility. She stated that the doctors had also given prescription and estimated bills for the requisite artificial limb for her lift time. She had accordingly prayed for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,00,000/ to enable her to live with dignity. PW1 had relied upon the following documents in support of her deposition recorded by way of affidavit.
a. Photocopy of her election identity card Ex.PW1/1.
b. Her original appointment letter Ex.PW1/2. c. Her experience/employment certificate Ex.PW1/3. d. Certified copy of her MLC Ex.PW1/4. e. Her original medical bills Ex.PW1/5(colly). f. The DAR, filed by the IO Ex.PW1/6(colly). Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 9 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 8.2 In her cross examination by Sh. Amit Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for
the insurance company/R2, PW1 deposed that she was graduate and had also completed a diploma course in Interior Design. She clarified that she had filed her educational documents on record. She stated that the case accident had occurred on 25.07.2011 at Pitam Pura, Delhi and the same had not occurred under Kohat Metro station. She deposed that there was no foot over bridge at the place from where she was crossing the road. She admitted that at the time of accident, she was standing at the central verge of the road for crossing the other side of the road. She deposed that there was no zebra crossing on the road from where she was crossing the road. She denied the suggestion that she was not following the traffic rules and regulations while crossing the road. She expressed her inability to tell anything about(the meaning of) jaywalking. She denied the suggestion that she was jaywalking on the road and the accident had occurred due to her sole negligence. She admitted that she was not working anywhere at the time of accident. She voluntarily stated that she was under notice period at Serco, BPO Company where she was employed before resigning. She admitted that the nature of her employment was that of a desk job. She denied the suggestion that she was not earning salary of Rs.16,103/ at the time of accident. She further denied the suggestion that she had not received any offer of appointment from M/s Alora Promoters Pvt. Ltd. or that the same was a forged and fabricated document. She deposed that at the time of recording of her deposition in the Court, she was using artificial limb of Ottobock Company as per advice of her treating doctor. She denied the suggestion that she had filed false and fabricated documents. She also denied the suggestion that she was capable of doing any desk job while sitting for earning her living. She further denied the suggestion that her claim was exaggerated and without any basis.
8.3 The LRs of R1 had failed to appear in the court to crossexamine PW1.
Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 10 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
Hence, the crossexamination of PW1 on behalf of LRs of R1 was treated as nil despite opportunity having been given to them to cross examine the PW1.
8.4 PW2 Sh. Bhaskar Nand Sharma, father of the petitioner has deposed by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A, wherein he had corroborated the version of PW1 Priyanka Sharma regarding her educational qualification, her employment as Assistant Manager with Serco BPO Pvt. Ltd., the manner of occurrence of the case accident, the medical bills of the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 20,48,000/, selection of the petitioner for employment on the post of Consultant Designer in Alora Promoters Pvt. Ltd. on a monthly salary to the tune of Rs. 28,000/ with incentives. PW2 had also supported that testimony of PW1 on the factum of requirement of artificial limb by the petitioner during her life time. He also proved on record his electoral identity card Ex.PW2/1.
8.5 In his cross examination by Sh. Amit Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the insurance company/R2, PW2 deposed that he was not an eye witness of the case accident. He denied the suggestion that the injured was not getting salary to the tune of Rs.16,103/ per month. He further denied the suggestion that the injured had not been given an offer/appointment letter for a month salary of Rs.28,000/. He also denied the suggestion that all the documents filed by the injured were false and fabricated.
8.6 The LRs of R1 had failed to appear in the court to crossexamine PW2. Hence, the crossexamination of PW2 on behalf of LRs of R1 was treated as nil despite opportunity having been given to them to cross examine the PW2.
8.7 PW3 Ms. Ekta Sharma, Senior Prothetist and Orthotist from Otto Bock Health Care India, New Delhi has deposed that she had been authrosied vide letter Ex.PW3/A to depose before this Court. She proved on court record the estimated bill of life expectancy of artificial limb issued by her company as Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 11 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
Ex.PW3/B(colly). She deposed that the patient had already paid an amount of Rs.5,50,000/ to her company vide invoice No.OBI/DEL/PC/0345 vide Ex.PW3/C for procuring her prosthesis (artificial limb).
8.8 In her cross examination by Sh. Amit Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the insurance company/R2, PW3 deposed that they had given the prescription for artificial limb for the petitioner which was based on physical assessment, mobility level, muscles strength and stump condition of the patient. PW3 deposed that she was not in the panel of assessment of the patient/injured in the present case. She stated that the patient had purchased prosthesis only once from them. She voluntarily stated that she (the patient) had visited them for the maintenance of the prosthesis from time to time. She deposed that normally, a patient had to visit their clinic after every six months for maintenance of the prosthesis, however, she could not tell specifically the number of visits made by the petitioner for maintenance of her prosthesis. She deposed that average life of one prosthesis was about 56 years and the cost was inclusive of all the accessories of the prosthesis. She expressed her inability to tell how the estimated costs of Rs.6,10,000/ as mentioned in Ex.PW3/B had been arrived at as the purchase cost of the same was Rs.5,50,000/. She deposed that there was no relationship between herself and Priyanka Sharma. She stated that the change of accessories depended upon the usage of the prosthesis and that there was no time frame for replacement of the accessories which depended on the uses/wear and tear sustained by the prosthesis, however, the normal life span of accessories was between 23 years. She denied the suggestions that their panel had not properly assessed the patient/petitioner regarding the nature of prosthesis to be used by her or that they had also given an inflated estimated cost or that the said estimated costs had been manipulated by her company to benefit the petitioner/patient. She stated that the petitioner would not be able to Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 12 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
continue her normal life and job even after using prosthesis as her left leg was also injured.
8.9 The LRs of R1 had failed to appear in the court to crossexamine PW3. Hence, the crossexamination of PW3 on behalf of LRs of R1 was treated as nil despite opportunity having been given to them to cross examine the PW3.
8.10 PW4 Inspector Lalit Kumar from Special Staff, Central District posted at Kamla Market, Delhi deposted that he was the investigating officer of the case and the DAR Ex.PW4/1(colly) was filed by him. He stated that as per his investigation, the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Ashish Singhal/R1/driver of the offending vehicle who had since expired. He deposed that the charesheet against Ashish Singhal in FIR No.287/11 registered at PS Subhash Place, u/s 279/338 IPC and 185 M.V. Act had also been filed by him. He deposed that he had also filed on record certain medical bills vide letter dated 19.01.2012 Ex.PW4/2 after the filing of DAR and the said bills were duly verified by him. He deposed that he had also filed on record another set of medical bills vide letter dated 23.03.2012 Ex.PW4/3 after the filing of DAR and the said bills had also been duly verified by him. He deposed that he had also filed on record a third set of medical bills vide letter dated 31.08.2012 Ex.PW4/4 after the filing of DAR and the said bills had also been duly verified by him.
8.11 The LRs of R1 as well as learned counsel for R2/insurance company had failed to appear in the court to crossexamine PW4. Hence, the cross examination of PW4 on behalf of LRs of R1 as well as on behalf of R2 was treated as nil despite opportunity having been given to them to cross examine the PW4.
8.12 PW5 Sh. Ankush Chaturvedi, Officer from Human Resource Teleperformance Global Services Pvt. Ltd. situated at Plot No.9495, Udyog Vihar, PhaseIV, Gurugram, Haryana had produced the Board Resolution Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 13 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
Ex.PW5/1 and Office order Ex.PW5/2 whereby he had been authorized to appear and depose in the present matter. He proved on record a copy of salary register for the month of March, 2010 in respect of injured Priyanka Sharma Ex.PW5/3 vide which it had been established that the gross salary of the injured/petitioner was Rs.15,000/ per month and the petitioner was not an income tax payee at the time of accident. He clarified that at the time of occurrence of the case accident, the name of the company (employer of the injured/ petitioner) was Infovision which was later on incorporated into Serco B.P.O. Pvt. Ltd. and further, it had been incorporated into Intelenet Global Services Pvt. Ltd. He stated that eventually the said company was incorporated into Teleperformance Gobal Services Pvt. Ltd. He stated that the petitioner had left the service of their company in March, 2010.
8.13 In his cross examination by Sh. Amit Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the insurance company/R2, PW5 deposed that he was working as an Officer Human Recourse in the above mentioned company since November 2015. He stated that he was not in service of the said company during the service tenure of petitioner Priyanka Sharma. He expressed his inability to tell anything about the post at which Priyanka Sharma had joined his company. He denied the suggestion that the documents filed by him on the day of recording of his deposition were forged and fabricated or that Priyanka Sharma had never worked with Infovision nor with Serco B.P.O. Pvt. Ltd. He deposed that he had no personal knowledge about the facts of the present case and he had deposed only on the basis of the documents filed by him in the Court. He denied the suggestion that since he was not aware about the present matter, therefore, he was not competent to depose in the present case. He stated that he had not placed on record any document to show the taking over/merger of the above mentioned companies, however, he expressed his capability of filing such Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 14 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
documents if directed by the court.
8.14 The LRs of R1 had failed to appear in the court to crossexamine PW5. Hence, the crossexamination of PW5 on behalf of LRs of R1 was treated as nil despite opportunity having been given to them to cross examine the PW5. 8.15 PW6 Dr. Ashish Goyal, Senior Specialist, Orthopedics Department posted at Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini, was examined on behalf of Dr. Jitender Singh,MS(Ortho), HOD Orthopedics, Dr. Surender Pal Jayant, Deputy Medical Superintendent and Dr. Matolia, Deputy Medical Superintendent of Dr. BSA Hospital. He proved on record the disability certificate of the petitioner Ex.PW6/1 identifying the signatures of Dr. Jitender Sigh, Dr. Surender Pal Jayant and Dr. Matolia at points X, Y and Z respectively on the said certificate stating that he had worked with the above named doctors in his official capacity. He deposed that as per the disability certificate Ex.PW6/1, patient Priyanka Sharma had sustained permanent physical disability to the tune of 83% in relation to both lower limbs with diagnosis of above knee amputation of right thigh and post traumatic stiffness of left knee and left ankle. He clarified that the disability of the petitioner was permanent in nature and was not likely to improve.
In response to a court question as to whether the patient was capable of continuing her job as Assistant Manager with a private company with the above said permanent disability, PW6 replied that as the said job involved sitting work and use of hands and brain, therefore, the petitioner would be capable of doing the said work, however, she would face considerable difficulty in doing the said job. He deposed that the petitioner would be wheel chair bound and would be considerably impaired in her mobility thereby requiring help during her mobility. He stated that all the mobility related work of the petitioner would be considerably hampered as she had lost one lower limb and had stiffness in knee and ankle of the other lower limb.
Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 15 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 8.16 In his crossexamination by Sh. Amit Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for
R2/insurance company, PW6 deposed that he was not a member of the disability board which had examined the patient. He admitted that he had no personal knowledge of the matter and he was deposing only as per the record. He denied the suggestions that the disability of the petitioner had not been assessed by the board as per the rules and guidelines or that the disability certificate had been manipulated by the board at the behest of the petitioner to help her in the present matter or that the disability of the petitioner had been assessed on the higher side. He also denied the suggestion that the disability of the petitioner was not permanent in nature and could improve with the passage of time. He stated that the patient could walk with difficulty while using an artificial limb.
8.17 The LRs of R1 had failed to appear in the court to crossexamine PW6. Hence, the crossexamination of PW6 on behalf of LRs of R1 was treated as nil despite opportunity having been given to them to cross examine the PW6.
8.18 PW7 Sh. Jayesh Sharma, Managing Director of M/s Alora Promoters Pvt. Ltd. had proved the appointment offer letter dated 21.07.2011 of the petitioner Ex.PW7/1 which had been issued to the petitioner and signed by him at point A in his official capacity as the Managing Director of M/s Alora Promoters Pvt. Ltd. He deposed that the petitioner had been offered Rs.28,000/ per month plus certain percentage as a salary package. He relied upon copy of his Aadhar card Ex.PW7/2. In corroboration of his averment to the effect that he was the Managing Director of M/s Alora Promoters Pvt. Ltd,, PW7 had placed on record copy of company details of the said company downloaded from the website of the Registrar of Companies Mark B and photocopy of Board Resolution dated 27.01.2021 as Mark C. 8.19 In his crossexamination by Sh. Amit Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for R3/insurance company, PW7 deposed that at the time of recording of his Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 16 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
deposition, there were three Directors in his company including himself. He stated that he had not brought any Board Resolution stating therein that he had been authorised by the company to depose before this Court in the present matter. He voluntarily clarified that he would be able to produce such resolution, if demanded. He deposed that the appointment was offered to the petitioner in July, 2011 and the petitioner was supposed to join the company on 01.08.2011 which she could not join.
8.20 The LRs of R1 had failed to appear in the court to crossexamine PW7. Hence, the crossexamination of PW7 on behalf of LRs of R1 was treated as nil despite opportunity having been given to them to cross examine PW7.
8.21 The LR's of Respondents No.1(DrivercumOwner of the offending vehicle) and Respondent No. 2 (Insurance Co.) had not availed the opportunity given to them by the Court to examine any witness in their defence.
8.22 No material contradiction or discrepancy had appeared in the cross examination of PW1 Priyanka Sharma to discredit her testimony recorded in the Court which prima facie establishes that the case accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1 thereby causing grievous injuries on the person of the petitioner resulting in 83% permanent disability in the body of the petitioner in relation to her both lower limbs. PW1 is the injured herself and she had no reason to falsely deposed against R1 in the present matter. Even otherwise, the testimony of PW1 Priyanka Sharma is reliable and trustworthy as she has withstood her crossexamination by the learned Counsel of the Insurance Company. Moreover, PW1 Priyanka Sharma has not been crossexamined by LR's of R1, and therefore, R1 shall be deemed to have admitted the deposition of PW1 to the effect that the case accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1.
Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 17 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 8.23 The issue no. 1 is only to be proved by claimant beyond preponderance of
probabilities as distinguished from beyond reasonable doubt. The copy of charge sheet filed in the concerned criminal court has been proved on record as part of DAR Ex.PW1/6 (colly) which reflects that R1 Ashish Singhal had been charge sheeted in the concerned criminal Court for the commission of the offences punishable U/s 279/338 IPC. The criminal case record can also be relied upon by this court to arrive at a finding regarding the involvement of the offending vehicle in the case accident and the negligence on the part of R1. Even otherwise, the factum of accident has not been disputed by LRs of R1.
8.24 Accordingly, in view of the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, on the basis of material placed on record and in view of the foregoing discussion, issue No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents by arriving at a finding to the effect that the case accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1 and that the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries in the accident in question.
Issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents accordingly.
9. Issue No. (2) Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
The onus of proving this issue beyond preponderance of probabilities was upon the petitioner.
9.1 In view of my findings in issue no.1 regarding negligence of R1 resulting in the occurrence of the case accident, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to compensation in respect of medical expenses, conveyance expenses, special diet charges, etc. incurred by her. I shall now Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 18 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
examine the entire evidence led by the parties including the documents of the petitioner for the purpose of arriving at a finding about the quantum of compensation to which the petitioner is entitled.
9.2 Petitioner Priyanka Sharma had examined herself by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A wherein she had reiterated the facts mentioned in the claim petition by deposing that on 25.07.2011 at about 5.00 p.m, while standing behind metallic railing near Metro Pillar No.337 facing the road from Wazirpur towards Madhuban Chowk for the purpose of crossing the said road, she had been hit by one car bearing registration No.DL3CBR4272 being driven in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed by R1/Ashish Singhal which had initially got smashed against the cemented divider of the road before getting smashed against the metallic railing installed between two consecutive pillars of Delhi Metro. She clarified that on account of collision against the cemented divider of the road and metallic railing installed between two consecutive pillars of Delhi Metro, the said car had also smashed against her due to which she had fell down on road and had sustained grievous injuries. She stated that she had been immediately removed by PCR Van to Saroj Hospital at Madhuban Chowk, Delhi, where she was medically examined vide MLC No.3343/11 dated 25.07.2011 wherein it had been mentioned that she had sustained crush injuries in right leg below knee level with loss of soft tissues and exposure of crushed bones and muscles along with pain, swelling and deformity in left thigh as well as a large lacerated wound over left leg and also a punctured wound on left eye.
She deposed that after completion of B.A. (Pass) Course from University of Delhi in the year 1998 and three years Advanced Diploma Course in Interior Designing from Meera Bai Womens' Polytechnic, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi in the year 1995 as well as after completion of Diploma in AutoCAD, she had joined the corporate field for management and administrative work as Assistant Manager at Serco B.P.O. Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon on 9 th August, 2010. She deposed Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 19 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
that she had successfully completed several management training programmes with meritious appreciations therein and due to her outstanding results and experience, she had been offered a job for the post of Consultant Designer by M/s Alora Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad on a monthly salary of Rs.28,000/ plus incentives and accordingly, she had resigned from her earlier employment with effect from 13.07.2011 where she had been earning Rs.16,103/ per month plus incentives upto 14.07.2011.
9.3 The deposition of the petitioner regarding nature of injuries and permanent disability sustained by her in the case accident has been corroborated by medical evidence in form of his MLC Ex.PW1/4 and her discharge summary dated 26.08.2011 which has been proved on Court record as part of DAR Ex.PW1/6. 9.4 Besides, as per the testimony of PW6 Dr. Ashish Goyal, Senior Specialist, Orthopedics, Dr. BSA Hospital, the petitioner had sustained 83% permanent disability in relation to her both lower limbs with diagnosis of above knee amputation of right thigh and post traumatic stiffness of left knee and left ankle.
Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to the following compensation:
10. Medical Expenses 10.1 The petitioner has claimed in her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A that she was entitled to a total compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,00,000/ (Rupees one and a half crores) including Medical Expenses in the sum of Rs.20,48,000/ from R1 and R2 in respect of grievous injuries sustained in the case accident. She has filed on record her medical bills Ex.PW1/5 comprising of a final bill dated bearing no. IBL/1112/00006651dated 28.07.2011 in the sum of Rs.1,23,575/ in respect of admission and treatment of the petitioner at Saroj hospital heart Institute w.e.f. 25.07.2011 to 28.07.2011, another bill bearing no. IBP044572 dated 26.08.2011 in the sum of Rs.6,02,090/ raised by Sant Parmanant Hospital in respect of admission and treatment of the petitioner at the said hospital with effect from 28.07.2011 to 26.08.2011. The said bill was Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 20 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
inclusive of charges of four surgeries undergone by the petitioner at the said hospital. Besides, the petitioner has filed on court record another final bill bearing no. IPB051530 dated 16.02.2012 in the sum of Rs. 1,07,205/ issued in respect of admission and treatment of the petitioner at Sant Parmanand hospital with effect from 12.02.2012 to 16.02.2012 and another bill bearing no.IPB057255 dated 18.07.2012 in respect of admission and discharge of the petitioner in day care at the said hospital on 18.07.2012 in the sum of Rs. 10,988/. Besides, the petitioner has annexed bills pertaining to physiotherapy undergone by her for a sum of Rs.51,800/.
Also, the petitioner has filed her remaining medical bills including consultation fee of doctors, expenses paid by her on undergoing various diagnostics tests and procedures and charges incurred by her on procuring medicines and assistive devices for mobility including wheel chair, walker, etc. amounting to a sum of Rs.3,37,819/. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted Rs.12,33,477/ as compensation under the said head of medical expenses.
11. Special Diet and conveyance 11.1 The petitioner has claimed in her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A that she was entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,50,00,000/(1.5 crores) from the respondents in respect of grievous injuries sustained in the case accident leading to mental pain and agony and loss of income suffered by her as well as medical expenses, special diet and conveyance charges, attendant charges incurred by her and in respect loss of her future earning prospects due to permanent disability suffered by her etc. She has placed on record certain bills of ambulance services availed by her for travelling to hospital on various occasions between 26.08.2011 to 18.07.2012 for a total sum of Rs.58,930/. 11.2 Petitioner Priyanka Sharma has, however, not specified the exact sum of money spent by her on special diet in her evidence by way of affidavit. She has Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 21 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
further failed to place on record any prescription of a doctor or Medical Practitioner or dietician containing details of special diet, such as, nutritional supplements/protein diet/liquid diet etc. prescribed to her for speedy recovery of the injuries sustained by her in the case accident. She has also not placed on record any bills of nutritional supplements purchased by her and travel expenses incurred by her.
11.3 Moreover, the petitioner has not examined any witness to prove her expenditure on special diet. No supplier of nutritional supplements has stepped into the witness box in support of the case of the petitioner to the effect that she had incurred any expenses on her special diet. In such circumstances, the entitlement of the petitioner to receive compensation towards special diet and conveyance has to be determined in accordance with the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner.
11.4 In this context, a perusal of the MLC of the petitioner bearing No.3343/11 dated 25.07.2011 reveals that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries including fracture of right femur, crush injuries in right leg below knee level with loss of tissues and exposure of crushed bones and muscles along with pain, swelling and deformity in left thigh as well as a large lacerated wound over left leg and also a punctured wound on left eye.
11.5 Besides, as per the discharge summary of the petitioner, she had remained admitted at Delhi Institute of Trauma and Orthopedics, Sant Parmanand Hospital, 18, Sham Nath Marg, Civil Lines, Delhi54, with effect from 28.07.2011 and was discharged from the said hospital on 26.08.2011 after undergoing various surgeries including external fixator implantation in left tibia with wound debriment done on 30.07.2011, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) surgery with locking compression plate (LCP) implantation for fracture shaft of femur in left leg and open reduction internal fixation(ORIF) with 1/3rd tubular plate implantation for management of fracture of left distal third fibula and Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 22 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
fixation with cancellous screw for management of fracture of left medial malleolus as well as right ankle knee trans femoral amputation through fracture performed on 01.08.2011 as well as Soleus muscle flap coverage with split skin grafting performed on 08.08.2011.
11.6 Moreover, as per the disability certificate of petitioner Ex.PW6/1, the petitioner had sustained permanent physical disability to the tune of 83% in relation to her both lower limbs with diagnosis of above knee amputation of right thigh and post traumatic stiffness of left knee and left ankle. Also, as per the testimony of PW6 Dr. Ashish Goel, the disability of the petitioner was permanent in nature and was not likely to improve.
11.7 A perusal of court record further reveals that the petitioner has annexed copies of treatment prescription and copies of diagnostic test report with effect from the date of accident, that is, 25.07.2011 to 18.07.2012. Even thereafter, the petitioner has occasionally visited various hospitals. Nevertheless, from the regular follow up treatment record filed by the petitioner, it can be safely concluded that the petitioner was under continuous treatment for healing of injuries sustained by her in the case accident for about one year, that is, till 18.07.2012. Accordingly, this tribunal is of the opinion that the period of treatmentcumrecuperation in the case of the petitioner can be determined to be about one year and during said period, the petitioner must have required certain special diets for speedy recovery.
11.8 In view of the foregoing discussion of this Tribunal regarding the nature of injuries and fractures sustained by the petitioner as well as the permanent disability to the extent of 83% suffered by the petitioner and also in view of the follow up treatment record of the petitioner annexed with the DAR, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner must have probably remained under treatment for a period of about one year from the date of occurrence of the alleged accident. Also, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner must have Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 23 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
required some special diets for speedy recovery and must have also incurred expenses on travelling to hospital from her residence and viceversa during her treatment period. Accordingly, a lump sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/ is granted as compensation to the petitioner under this head including Rs.40,000/ towards special diet and Rs.60,000/ towards conveyance respectively.
12. Attendant Charges 12.1 The petitioner has claimed in her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A that she was entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,50,00,000/(1.5 crores) from the respondents in respect of grievous injuries sustained in the case accident leading to mental pain and agony and loss of income suffered by her as well as medical expenses, special diet and conveyance charges, attendant charges incurred by her and in respect loss of her future earning prospects due to permanent disability suffered by her etc. She has placed on record certain bills of Kitabo Devi Nurses Bureau Company for availing the service of medical attendant for her care and look after between 23.12.2011 to 02.07.2013 for a total sum of Rs.1,34,350/. However, on the basis of medical documents including regular follow up treatment record of the petitioner, her treatment period has been assessed to be about one year, that is, with effect from 25.07.2011(date of accident) to 18.07.2012. Accordingly, her treatmentcumrecuperation period has already been determined to be about one year, and therefore, this tribunal is not inclined to grant attendant charges to the petitioner for a period of two years as claimed by her. The attendant charges incurred by the petitioner between 25.07.2011 to 18.07.2012 aggregates to about Rs.81,900/. Accordingly, a lump sum amount of Rs. 81,900/ is granted as compensation to the petitioner under this head of attendant charges.
13. Compensation due to permanent disability/Loss of future earning capacity due to disability Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 24 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
13.1 The petitioner has claimed in her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A that she was entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,50,00,000/(1.5 crores) from the respondents in respect of grievous injuries sustained in the case accident leading to mental pain and agony and loss of income suffered by her as well as medical expenses, special diet and conveyance charges, attendant charges incurred by her and in respect loss of her future earning prospects due to permanent disability suffered by her etc. 13.2 Petitioner/PW1 Priyanka Sharma had deposed that she was working as an Assistant Manager at Serco B.P.O. Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon since 9 th August, 2010 on a monthly salary to the tune of Rs.16,103/. She had deposed that she had worked in the said company till 13.07.2011 and had thereafter resigned from the post of Assistant Manager in the said company on account of having been offered a job on the post of Consultant Designer by M/s Alora Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad on a monthly salary of Rs.28,000/ plus incentives. 13.3 The petitioner had examined Sh. Jayesh Sharma, Managing Director of M/s Alora Promoters Pvt. Ltd. as PW7 who had proved the appointment offer letter dated 21.07.2011 of the petitioner as Ex.PW7/1 and had reaffirmed during his examination in chief that the petitioner had been offered Rs.28,000/ per month plus certain percentage as salary package. He further clarified in his crossexamination that the petitioner was supposed to join his company M/s Alora Promoters Pvt. Ltd. on 01.08.2011 as per the appointment offer letter Ex.PW7/1, however, she could not join on the said date due to the case accident. In view of the appointment offer letter Ex.PW7/1 proved on record by the prospective employer of the petitioner, it can be safely concluded that the earning capacity of the petitioner was to the tune of Rs.28,000/ per month and if the case accident had not occurred on 25.07.2011, then, after six days, she would have joined service to the post of Consultant Designer in M/s Alora Promoters Pvt. Ltd. on a monthly salary of Rs.28,000/.
Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 25 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 13.4 The salary of the petitioner can be determined in the present case on the
basis of two appointment letters, that is, the salary mentioned in the experience/employment certificate Ex.PW1/3 of Serco BPO Pvt. Ltd. as well as copy of salary register for the month of March, 2010 Ex.PW5/3 furnished by authorised representative of employer of petitioner Serco BPO Pvt. Ltd. and in the alternative, on the basis of the proposed appointment offer letter Ex.PW7/1 received by the petitioner from M/s Alora Promoters Pvt. Ltd. if the salary of the petitioner is determined according to the employment certificate etc., as proved on record by the previous employer of the petitioner, that is, Serco BPO Pvt. Ltd., then, her salary can be determined to be Rs.16,103/ per month. However, MACT is a benevolent legislation and an interpretation favouring the injured must generally be taken of any document or legal proposition. Therefore, the appointment/offer letter of the petitioner issued by Alora Motors Pvt. Ltd. situated at B156, Sector36, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. can be relied upon to determine the earning capacity/income of the petitioner, particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner had resigned from her previous employment with Serco BPO Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon nearly twelve days prior to the date of occurrence of the case accident and she was supposed to join her new job after about six days of occurrence of the case accident, that is, on 01.08.2011. Accordingly, the monthly income of the petitioner is determined to be Rs.28,000/ as mentioned in the offer letter Ex.PW7/1. My opinion in this regard is fortified by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in various decided cases wherein the Hon'ble Apex court has emphasized that the Court should be liberal while granting compensation for loss of life and limb due to road traffic accidents and as far as possible, the Court should grant reasonable compensation to the victims of motor vehicular accident ensuring that the sum awarded as compensation is neither a pittance nor a bounty.
13.5 In this context, similar observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 26 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
case of Concord Of India Insurance Co Ltd vs Nirmala Devi And Ors1979 AIR 1666, 1979 SCR (3) 694 decided on 16 April, 1979 wherein the Hon'ble Apex court had called upon the Courts across the country to determine the quantum of compensation in MACT cases in a rather liberal manner keeping in view the value of life and limb in a free country like India. The relevant extract of the observation made in para 2 of the judgment is reproduced herein below:
"The jurisprudence of compensation for motor accidents must develop in the direction of nofault liability and the determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales."
13.6 In an another similar case of K. Suresh vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd & Anr 8(2012) 12 SCC 274, the Hon'ble Apex Court had stressed on the need of awarding just and fair compensation to victims of road traffic accident and had cautioned the tribunals presiding of Motor Accident Claims to refrain not only from awarding a bonanza or jackpot as compensation but also to ensure that the sum awarded to a victim of motor vehicular accident is not a meagre amount or pretence. Relevant extract of observations made in para 2 of the judgment is reproduced herein below:
"There cannot be actual compensation for anguish of the heart or for mental tribulations. The quintessentiality lies in the pragmatic computation of the loss sustained which has to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the Act') stipulates that there should be grant of "just compensation".
Thus, it becomes a challenge for a court of law to determine "just compensation" which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and simultaneously, should not be a pittance."
13.7 In a recent case titled as Kajal vs Jagdish Chand in Civil Appeal No.735/2020 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.15504/2019 decided on 5 February, 2020, the Hon'ble Apex Court had reiterated that although there Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 27 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
cannot be an equivalent compensation for human suffering including loss of limb and life emanating from a road traffic accident, however, Courts must endeavor to award a just compensation which is neither a windfall nor a scanty amount. Relevant extract of observations made in para 6 of the judgment is reproduced herein below:
"6. It is impossible to equate human suffering and personal deprivation with money. However, this is what the Act enjoins upon the courts to do. The court has to make a judicious attempt to award damages, so as to compensate the claimant for the loss suffered by the victim. On the one hand, the compensation should not be assessed very conservatively, but on the other hand, compensation should also not be assessed in so liberal a fashion so as to make it a bounty to the claimant. The court while assessing the compensation should have regard to the degree of deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation. Such compensation is what is termed as just compensation. The compensation or damages assessed for personal injuries should be substantial to compensate the injured for the deprivation suffered by the injured throughout his/her life. They should not be just token damages."
13.8 Applying the ratio of aforecited opinions expressed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decided cases of Concord Of India Insurance Co Ltd vs Nirmala Devi And Ors,(supra), K. Suresh vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd & Anr(supra) and Kajal vs Jagdish Chand (supra), it can be safely concluded that a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal must endeavor to award just and fair compensation to a victim of road traffic accident by assessing his or income properly and efforts must be made to ensure that the income or earning capacity of a victim of road traffic accident is neither exorbitantly assessed so as to grant an unreasonably excessive amount of compensation to the victim nor the income or earning capacity of a victim of a road traffic accident should be assessed in such a conservative manner to deprive the victim of just and fair compensation Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 28 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
commensurate with his or her qualification and earning potentials. In the present case, the petitioner is a qualified interior designer and after having left the job of Assistant Manager in Serco BPO Pvt. Ltd., she had secured herself an offer of appointment to the post of consultant designer in M/s Alora Promoters Pvt. Ltd. on a monthly salary of Rs.28,000/. It is unfortunate that the petitioner could not join the said company on account of having met with the case accident merely six days prior to her date of joining and in such circumstances, it would be unreasonable to compute the salary of the petitioner according to her previous employment with Serco BPO Pvt. Ltd. particularly when the petitioner had successfully managed to secure appointment to a more lucrative post in M/s Alora Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, the monthly salary or earning capacity of the petitioner is determined to be Rs.28,000/.
13.9 The petitioner has placed on record a copy of Matriculationcum Date of Birth Certificate issued by Central Board of Secondary Education which mentions the date of birth of petitioner as 25.05.1974. The date of accident was 25.07.2011. Hence, the petitioner was aged about 37 years and 02 months at the time of accident.
13.10 Besides, a perusal of the MLC of the petitioner bearing No.3343/11 dated 25.07.2011 reveals that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries including fracture of right femur, crush injuries in right leg below knee level with loss of tissues and exposure of crushed bones and muscles along with pain, swelling and deformity in left thigh as well as a large lacerated wound over left leg and also a punctured wound on left eye.
13.11 Moreover, as per the discharge summary of the petitioner, she had remained admitted at Delhi Institute of Trauma and Orthopedics, Sant Parmanand Hospital, 18, Sham Nath Marg, Civil Lines, Delhi54, with effect from 28.07.2011 and was discharged from the said hospital on 26.08.2011 after undergoing various surgeries including external fixator implantation in left tibia Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 29 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
with wound debriment done on 30.07.2011, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) surgery with locking compression plate (LCP) implantation for management of fracture of shaft of femur in left leg and open reduction internal fixation(ORIF) surgery with 1/3rd tubular plate implantation for management of fracture of left distal third fibula and fixation with cancellous screw for management of fracture of left medial malleolus as well as right ankle knee trans femoral amputation through fracture performed on 01.08.2011 as well as Soleus muscle flap coverage surgery with split skin grafting performed on 08.08.2011. 13.12 The petitioner had examined as PW6 one Dr. Ashish Goyal, Senior Specialist(Orthopedics) posted in Orthopedic Department of Dr. BSA Hospital who had reaffirmed that disability certificate No.470 dated 01.11.2013 Ex.PW6/1 had been issued in respect of permanent disability suffered by patient Priyanka Sharma on account of injuries sustained in the case accident. He clarified that as per the disability certificate cum assessment sheet Ex.PW7/A, petitioner Priyanka Sharma had sustained 83% permanent physical disability in relation to her both lower limbs with diagnosis of above knee amputation of right thigh with post traumatic stiffness of left knee and left ankle.
13.13 During his examinationinchief, PW6 Dr. Ashish Goyal had further clarified that the disability of the petitioner was permanent in nature and was not likely to improve. In response to a Court question, PW6 had further clarified that the petitioner would remain capable of working as an Assistant Manager in a private company, however, she would face a considerable difficulty in doing the said job because of being wheel chair bound and because of her requirement of assistance in mobility. Thus, as per the testimony of PW6, the disability sustained by the petitioner due to the case accident was likely to make it considerably difficult for the petitioner to pursue her career in management field, and therefore, the permanent disability of the petitioner qua her both lower limbs is assessed to be 83% in accordance with the medical opinion.
Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 30 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 13.14 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the recent order in case of Rajesh
Tyagi & Orsvs Jaibir Singh & Ors, FAO 842/2003, date of order 09.03.2018 has inter alia held as follows:
"6.4 The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, education and other factors.
6.5. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps:
(i) The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life).
(ii) The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age.
(iii) The third step is to find out whether :
a) The claimant is totally disabled, earning any kind of livelihood, or
b) Whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or
c) Whether he was prevented all restricted from Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 31 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood."
13.15 In the present case, the petitioner suffered permanent disability to the tune of 83% in relation to both her lower limbs with diagnosis of above knee amputation of right thigh and post traumatic stiffness of left knee and left ankle due to the injuries sustained in the case accident.
13.16 Besides, as per the testimony of PW6, the disability sustained by the petitioner due to the case accident was likely to make it considerably difficult for her to pursue her career in management field. Moreover, it is noteworthy that the petitioner had already resigned from the post of Assistant Manager in a private firm for seeking employment to the post of Consultant Designer in another private firm, namely, M/s Alora Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and the job of an interior designer requires him/her to be considerably more active and to perform duties with good locomotor abilities for inspection of sites where interior designing intervention is required by any construction company etc. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the petitioner would face great hardship in pursuing her career as a consultant designer in a construction company, such as, M/s Alora Promoters Pvt. Ltd., her prospective employer. Despite the fact that the petitioner had lost her mobility due to injury to both her legs, the upper limbs of the petitioner were functional and she could have done some desk job to earn her livelihood although with great difficulty.
13.17 Thus, as already discussed above, for being gainfully employed as a Consultant Designer, the petitioner would be required to have good locomotor abilities so as to enable her to stand for long hours for doing inspection of construction sites, preparation of layouts etc. and in view of the 83% permanent Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 32 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
disability suffered by her, the petitioner was likely to face difficulty in functioning as a Consultant Designer and her efficacy in pursuing her career as a Consultant Designer was likely to be adversely effected due to permanent disability sustained by her.
13.18 In view of above discussion regarding the injuries suffered by the petitioner with permanent disability, the functional disability of the petitioner in relation to her whole body and the effect of permanent disability on her actual earning capacity is taken as 60 %.
14. Addition of Future Prospects.
14.1 In respect of entitlement of the petitioner to addition of future prospects in his monthly income, reference should be made to the latest Constitutional Bench Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision 31.10.2017, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court interalia held as under:.
61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:
(i).........................................................................................
(ii) .....................................................................................
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30% , if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was selfemployed or on a fixed salary, an Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 33 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
(v) For the determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced herein before.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and future expenses should be Rs. 15,000/, Rs. 40,000/ and Rs. 15,000/ respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. "
(.... Emphasis Supplied) 14.2 Reference is also made to the case of Sanjay Oberoi vs Manoj Bageriya, MAC APPEAL 829/2011 decided on 03.11.2017 & Prem Chand vs Shamim Husain & Ors, MAC.APP. 1003/2017 decided on October 11,2018 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
14.3 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sanjay Oberoi (Supra) after referring to the judgment of the constitution bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 34 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision 31.10.2017 granted element of future prospects of increase in the income in a case where the income of the petitioner was notionally assessed on the basis of minimum wages with functional disability @ 10%.
14.4 In the case in hand, the petitioner was a salaried private sector employee and thus while determining her income for computing compensation, future prospects have to be added to fall within the ambit and sweep of just compensation under Section 168 of M.V. Act.
14.5 The age of the petitioner, as discussed above, in the present case was about 37 years and 02 months at the time occurrence of the case accident and she was a salaried private sector employee. Therefore, in view of paragraph no. 61 (iv) of above said judgment of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the petitioner would be entitled to an addition of 40% to her established income as future prospects because she was below the age of 40 years at the time of her accident. Accordingly, the monthly income of petitioner is thus calculated as Rs. 28,000/ +40% of 28,000/(which comes to Rs.11,200/) = Rs.39,200/ after addition of future prospects.
14.6 The age of petitioner at the time of accident was about 37 years and 02 months. In the said circumstances, the relevant multiplier of "15" is to be adopted as per judgment in case of Sarla Verma vs Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 which has been upheld in paragraph no. 61(vi) in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra).
14.7 The compensation is accordingly assessed towards loss of earning capacity at Rs.42,33,600/[(Rs.39,200/per month x12 months x 15 (age multiplier) x 60/100(functional disability)].
15. Loss of Amenities of Life.
15.1 A perusal of the MLC of the petitioner bearing No.3343/11 dated Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 35 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
25.07.2011 reveals that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries including fracture of right femur, crush injuries in right leg below knee level with loss of tissues and exposure of crushed bones and muscles along with pain, swelling and deformity in left thigh as well as a large lacerated wound over left leg and also a punctured wound on left eye. Besides, as per the discharge summary of the petitioner, she had remained admitted at Delhi Institute of Trauma and Orthopedics, Sant Parmanand Hospital, 18, Sham Nath Marg, Civil Lines, Delhi 54, with effect from 28.07.2011 and was discharged from the said hospital on 26.08.2011 after under going various surgeries including external fixator implantation in left tibia with wound debriment done on 30.07.2011, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) surgery with locking compression plate (LCP) implantation for management of fracture of shaft of femur in left leg and open reduction internal fixation(ORIF) surgery with 1/3rd tubular plate for management of fracture of left distal third fibula and fixation with cancellous screw for management of fracture of left medial malleolus as well as right ankle knee trans femoral amputation through fracture performed on 01.08.2011 as well as Soleus muscle flap coverage surgery with split skin grafting performed on 08.08.2011. Moreover, the petitioner was medically examined by the board of doctors of Dr.BSA Hospital vide disability certificate cumassessment sheet Ex.PW6/1 wherein a finding had been given to the effect that she had sustained 83% permanent disability in relation to her both lower limbs with diagnosis of above knee amputation of right thigh with post traumatic stiffness of left knee and left ankle.
15.2 Petitioner has examined Dr. Ashish Goyal, Senior Specialist(Orthopedics) from Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi who had reaffirmed that disability certificate No.No.470 dated 01.11.2013 Ex.PW6/1 had been issued in respect of permanent disability suffered by patient Priyanka Sharma on account of injuries sustained in the case accident. He clarified that as per the disability certificate and Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 36 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
assessment sheet Ex.PW6/1, petitioner Priyanka Sharma had sustained 83% permanent physical disability in relation to her both lower limbs with diagnosis of above knee amputation of right thigh with post traumatic stiffness of left knee and left ankle on account of due to injuries suffered in the case accident. 15.3 In view of my foregoing discussion regarding the above mentioned grievous injuries suffered by the petitioner, the four surgeries undergone by her and the permanent disability sustained by her, this tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner must have suffered loss of enjoyment of life and its amenities on account of her injuries and permanent disability suffered by her due to the case accident, and thus, this tribunal deems it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.80,000/ as compensation to the petitioner towards loss of amenities of life.
16. Pain and Suffering 16.1 A perusal of the MLC of the petitioner bearing No.3343/11 dated 25.07.2011 reveals that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries including fracture of right femur, crush injuries in right leg below knee level with loss of tissues and exposure of crushed bones and muscles along with pain, swelling and deformity in left thigh as well as a large lacerated wound over left leg and also a punctured wound on left eye.
16.2 Besides, as per the discharge summary of the petitioner, she had remained admitted at Delhi Institute of Trauma and Orthopedics, Sant Parmanand Hospital, 18, Sham Nath Marg, Civil Lines, Delhi54 for about one month with effect from 28.07.2011 and was discharged from the said hospital on 26.08.2011 after under going various surgeries resulting in amputation of her right leg upto thigh level.
16.3 Also, as per the disability certificate of the petitioner, she had sustained 83% permanent disability in relation to both her lower limbs resulting in restricting her mobility to a great extent and causing her immense pain and hardship including physical pain due to loss of limb and mental agony due to loss of job Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 37 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
etc. 16.4 Accordingly, keeping in view of the grievous nature of grievous injuries suffered by the petitioner, the four surgeries undergone by her and the permanent disability sustained by her, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner must have endured physical pain and mental agony during her recuperation period and even thereafter, in getting accustomed to her life dependent on wheel chair for ambulation. Accordingly, a lump sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/ is granted as compensation to the petitioner under the said head of pain and suffering.
17. Loss of Income 17.1 Petitioner Priyanka Sharma as PW1 had deposed that she was working as an Assistant Manager at Serco B.P.O. Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon since 9 th August, 2010 on a monthly salary to the tune of Rs.16,103/. She had further deposed that she had worked in the said company till 13.07.2011, and had thereafter, resigned from the post of Assistant Manager in the said company on account of having been offered a job on the post of Consultant Designer by M/s Alora Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad on a monthly salary of Rs.28,000/ plus incentives and after the case accident, due to above knee amputation of right thigh and post traumatic stiffness of left knee and left ankle, she was unable to do any work and had lost her job. The Managing Director of her employer, that is, M/s Alora Promoters Pvt. Ltd. has proved on record appointment offer letter Ex.PW7/1 issued in favour of petitioner to prove her monthly emoluments. On the basis of the said document, her monthly income has already been determined to be about Rs.28,000/ in my foregoing discussion. Besides, the period of treatment cum recuperation in the case of the petitioner has also been already determined to be about 12 months, and therefore, loss of income of Rs. 3,36,000/ (Rs. 28,000/ x 12 months) is granted to the petitioner for 12 months.
18 Artificial Limb Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 38 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 18.1 On 08.08.2022, Sh. Sudhir Vats, learned counsel for the petitioner had
made statement on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner did not want to get herself examined by the committee formed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, FAO 842/2003 order dated 09.03.2018 and did not want any compensation under the head of artificial limb. 18.2 Although the petitioner has examined Ms. Ekta Sharma, Senior Prosthetist and Orthotist from Otto Bock Health Care India, New Delhi as PW3 who has proved the estimated expenses of artificial limb required by the petitioner to the tune of Rs.58,84,000/ assuming that her life span would be around 71 years. However, the testimony of PW3 becomes redundant on account of the above said statement of learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of above said statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, nothing is being granted to the petitioner as compensation under this head. Even otherwise, the petitioner has already been compensated for loss of future earning capacity due to 83% permanent disability and 60% functional disability sustained by her on account of injuries sustained in the case accident.
19. Accordingly, the over all compensation which is to be awarded to the petitioner thus comes to Rs.61,64,977// which is tabulated as below: Sl. No Compensation Award amount
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 1,00,000/ 2 Special diet & Conveyance Rs. 1,00,000/
3. Attendant Charges Rs. 81,900/
4. Medical Expenses Rs. 12,33,477/
5. Loss of income Rs. 3,36,000/
6. Loss of amenities of life Rs. 80,000/
7. Loss of future earning capacity Rs. 42,33,600/ Total Rs. 61,64,977/ Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 39 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
(Rupees Sixty One Lacs Sixty Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Seven Only) 19.1 In respect of entitlement of the petitioner to interest on the awarded amount, it is noteworthy that the Hon'ble Apex Court had in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC) of the back the victims of Uphaar Tragedy be awarded compensation with interest @ 9% per annum. The present claim petition had been instituted on 28.09.2011 and the rate of interest on fixed deposits in nationalized banks had fluctuated/dropped several times during the pendency of the present matter. Therefore, in the interest of justice, in the present case also this court is of the opinion that the claimant/petitioner is entitled to interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. with effect from 28.09.2011 till realisation of the compensation amount. 19.2 The amount of interim award, if any, shall however be deducted from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the petitioner.
20. Liability 20.1 In the case in hand, the Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd./R2 has not been able to show anything on record to prove that R1 who was the drivercumowner of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence conferring authority upon him to drive a motor vehicle on a public road issued in his favour by the competent authority. Moreover, the insurance policy of the offending vehicle stood valid in favour of R1 as on the date of the occurrence of the alleged accident. As per settled law, since the offending vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company/R2, hence R2 is liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the petitioner as per law.
20.2 Accordingly, in the case in hand, in terms of order dated 16.05.2017 of Hon'ble High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 40 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors., Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd./R2 is directed to deposit the awarded amount of Rs.61,64,977/ within 30 days from today within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal at State Bank of India, Rohini Courts Branch, Delhi along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition/DAR till notice of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R2 to the petitioner and her advocates and to show or deposit the receipt of the acknowledgement with the Nazir as per rules. R2 is further directed to deposit the awarded amount in the above said bank by means of cheque drawn in the name of above said bank along with the name of the claimant mentioned therein. The said bank is further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimant approaches the bank for disbursement, so that the awarded amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheque.
APPORTIONMENT
21. Statement of petitioner in terms of clause 29 of MCTAP was recorded on 04.09.2021 regarding his savings bank a/c with endorsement of MACT claims SB Account, no loan, cheque book and ATM/debit card. I have heard the petitioner and learned counsel for the petitioner/claimant regarding the financial needs of the injured/petitioner and in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment passed 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: 21.1 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, said statement of the petitioner/injured and clause 32 of MCTAP regarding protection of the Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 41 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
award amount, it is hereby directed that on realization, an amount of Rs. 12,64,977/ be released to her in his MACT Claims SB A/c no.1710000101418822 with PNB, Pitam Pura Shopping Complex Branch, Delhi as per rules, that is, the branch near her place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under clause 29 MCTAP) and remaining amount be kept in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Account (MACAD) so that the maximum benefits can be availed by the petitioner. In case, the MACAD scheme has not become fully operational in the concerned bank, till the time the same becomes fully operational, the remaining amount be kept in 120 FDRs of equal amount for a period of one month to 120 months respectively with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
21.2 The aforesaid award amount shall be disbursed to the claimant through the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in case of Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, FAO 842/2003. However, till the time MACAD Scheme becomes fully operational and to ensure that the petitioner is not put to any undue inconvenience, the fixed deposits shall be subject to following conditions:
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the victim, that is, the saving bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be individual savings account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 42 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
the savings bank account of the claimant/(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amount of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence i.e. above said a/c.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the court.
(f) The concerned Bank shall not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect, that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the pass book(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
22. Relief 22.1 As discussed above, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd./R2 is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs. 61,64,977/ with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition, that is, 28.09.2011 till realization within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal at SBI , Rohini Court Branch, Delhi within 30 days from today under intimation of deposition of the awarded amount to be Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 43 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
given by R2 to the petitioner and her advocate failing which the R2 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the period of delay beyond 30 days. 22.2 R2 is also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the amount in the above said bank to the claimants and complete details in respect of calculations of interest etc. in the court within 30 days from today. 22.3 A copy of this judgment/award be sent to respondent no.2 for compliance within the granted time.
22.4 Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of non receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the granted time.
In terms of directions contained in the order dated 07.12.2018 and subsequent order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in the case of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors vs Jaibir Singh & Ors., FAO 842/2003, the copy of the award be also sent by the Ahlmad of the court to Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India (as per the list of nodal officers of 21 banks of Indian Bank's Association as circulated to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide above mentioned order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court) who is the Nodal Officer with contact details (02222741336/9414048606) {other detailsPersonal Banking Business Unit (LIMA) 13th Floor, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai400021} through email ([email protected]) through the computer branch of Rohini Courts, Delhi. Ahlmad of the court is directed to take immediate steps in that regard.
A copy of this award be forwarded to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and DLSA in terms of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. vide order dated 12.12.2014.
Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 44 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
In view of the directions contained in order dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, the statement of petitioner was also recorded on 04.09.2021. The record would show that the relevant documents including copy of aadhar card, PAN card, copy of bank pass book and form 15G of the petitioner have already been supplied to the learned counsel for insurance co. on 04.09.2021 itself.
23. Form IVB which has been duly filled in has also been attached herewith. File be consigned to record room as per rules after compliance of necessary legal formalities. Copy of order be given to parties for necessary compliance as per rules.
Announced in open court (JASJEET KAUR)
st
On 31 August, 2022 PO MACT N/W
Rohini Courts, Delhi.
Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 45 Of 48
Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
FORM - IV B
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1.Date of accident: 25.07.2011
2. Name of injured: Priyanka Sharma
3. Age of the injured: About 37 years and 02 months at the time of accident.
4. Occupation of the injured: private salaried person
5. Income of the injured: About Rs. 28,000/ per month.
6. Nature of injury: Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured: About one year.
8. Period of hospitalization: 33 days.
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details: Yes. 83%
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs.12,33,477/
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.60,000/
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs.40,000/
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs.81,900/
(v) Loss of income Rs.3,36,000/
(vi) Any other loss which may require any N/A special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. NonPecuniary Loss:
(I) Compensation for mental and physical N/A
Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 46 Of 48
Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.80,000/
(iv) Disfiguration N/A
(v) Loss of marriage prospects N/A
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, N/A
hardships, disappointment, frustration,
mental stress, dejectment and
unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and 83% nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N/A expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity 60% in relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (Income X Rs.42,33,600/) [(Rs.28,000/ %Earning capacity X Multiplier) per month x12 months x 15 (age multiplier) x 60/100(functional disability)].
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.61,64,977/
15. INTEREST AWARDED 7%
16. Interest amount up to the date of Rs.47,14,666.08/ award
17. Total amount including interest Rs. 1,08,79,643.08/ (Rs,1,08,79,650/ after rounding of Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 47 Of 48 Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors.
18. Award amount released Rs. 12,64,977/
19. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.96,14,666/
20. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in terms of amount to the claimant (s) (Clause29) clause 29 of MCTAP
21. Next date for compliance of the award. 30.09.2022 (Clause 31) Announced in open court (JASJEET KAUR) On 31st August, 2022 PO MACT N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi.
Priyanka Sharma vs. Ashish Singhal & Ors. 48 Of 48