Delhi District Court
Shakuntla Devi vs Sh. Jai Mangal Sharma (Driver) on 28 April, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. REKHA, PO MACT01 (SOUTH
WEST DISTRICT), DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
MACP No. : 793/17
CNR No.DLSW01 0075962017
FIR NO. 107/2017
P.S.Dwarka South
Shakuntla Devi
W/o Sh. Rama Nand,
R/o 556, Gali No. 63,
Mahavir Vihar, Part3,
Delhi110045 ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Sh. Jai Mangal Sharma (Driver)
S/o Sh. Nageshwar Sharma
R/o B2/308, Tara Nagar, Old Palam
Road, Kakrola, Delhi
Also at:
VillageJarang, PS:GAYA Ghat,
DisttMuzaffarpur, Bihar
2. Ram Chander Manjhi(Owner)
S/o Sh. Jeetan Manjhi
R/o H99H, Block Sri Niwaspuri
New Delhi110065 ... Respondents
FORM V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE
MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
1 Date of the accident 09.03.2017
MACT No. 793/2017 Shakuntala Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors. 1
2 Date of intimation of the accident by the Not clear from record
Investigating Officer to the Claims Tribunal (
Clause 2)
3 Date of intimation of the accident by the Without Insurance
Investigating Officer to the Insurance
Company (Clause 2)
4 Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Not clear from record
Cr. PC before the Metropolitan Magistrate
(Clause 10)
5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident 12.07.2017
Information Report (DAR) by the
Investigating Officer before Claims Tribunal.
(Clause 10)
6 Date of service of DAR on the Insurance N.A.
Company. (Clause 11)
7 Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). 12.07.2017
(Clause 11)
8 Whether DAR was complete in all respects? Yes
(Clause 16)
9 If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR N.A
removed later on?
10 Whether the police has verified the Yes
documents filed with DAR? (Clause 4)
11 Whether there was any delay or deficiency No
on the part of the Investigating Officer? If
so, whether any action / direction warranted?
12 Date of appointment of the Designated N.A.
Officer by the Insurance company ( Clause
20 )
13 Name, address and contact number of the N.A.
Designated Officer of the Insurance
Company ( Clause 20 )
14 Whether the Designated Officer of the N.A.
Insurance Company submitted his report
within 30 days of the DAR? ( Clause 22 )
15 Whether the Insurance Company admitted N.A.
the liability? If so, whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance Company fairly
MACT No. 793/2017 Shakuntala Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors. 2
computed the compensation in accordance
with law ( Clause 23 )
16 Whether there was any delay or deficiency N.A.
on the part of the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company? If so, whether any
action / directions warranted?
17 Date of response of the claimant (s) to the N.A
offer of the Insurance Company. ( Clause 24)
18 Date of Award 28.04.2023.
19 Whether the award was passed with the No.
consent of the parties? ( Clause 22)
20 Whether the claimant (s) were directed to Yes
open savings bank accounts (s) near their
place of residence ? ( Clause 18)
21 Date of order by which claimant(s) were 20.01.2018
directed to open savings bank accounts(s)
near his place of residence and produce PAN
Card and Adhaar Card and the direction tot
he bank not issue any cheque book/debit card
to the claimants (s) and make an endorsement
to this effect on the passbook(s) (Clause 18 )
22 Date on which the claimant(s) produced the
passbook of their savings bank account near
the place of their residence alongwith the .....................
endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
(Clause 18 )
23 Permanent Residential Address of the 556, Gali No. 63,
Claimant(s) (Clause 27 )
Mahavir Vihar,
Part3,
Delhi110045
24. Details of savings bank account(s) of the ..................
claimant(s) and the address of the bank with
IFSC Code( Clause 27)
25 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank .................
MACT No. 793/2017 Shakuntala Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors. 3
account(s) is near his place of residence ?
(Clause 27)
26 Whether the claimant(s) were examined at ..............
the time of passing of the award to ascertain
his/their financial condition? ( Clause 27)
27 Account number, MICR number, IFSC Account No.
Code, name and branch of the bank of the 37665570911 at SBI
Claims Tribunal in which the award amount Dwarka, Sector10
is to be deposited/transferred. Branch, Delhi(IFSC
Code SBIN0011566 an
MICR no. 110002483)
Date of institution 12.07.2017
Date of pronouncement of judgment - 28.04.2023
J U D G M E N T:
1. The present DAR has been filed qua injury sustained by Shakuntla Devi caused in a road accident which took place on 09.03.2017.
2. CLAIM:
The brief facts in narrow compass, relevant and necessary for the disposal of the present petition are that on 09.03.2017 at about 12:45 P.M. petitioner/injuredShakuntla alongwith Kalva Devi (since deceased) were returning to home from the BSES office Sector6, Dwarka. When they were crossing the road from sector6 side towards sector2 side, one black colour motorcycle bearing No. DL3SB9605 (hereinafter referred as offending vehicle) driven by the MACT No. 793/2017 Shakuntala Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors. 4 respondent no. 1Jay Mangal Sharma in a very rash and negligent manner hit the petitioner and Kalka Devi. Upon powerful impact, Kalva Devi has suffered fatal injuries and petitioner received injuries over her body. Petitioner was admitted to Ayushman Hospital by unknown person and Kalva Devi was admitted by the respondent no. 1/driver in Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Dwarka Sector1 and later the family members of the deceased were informed that Kalva Devi was declared brought dead on arrival at the hospital. Petitioner had incurred expenses Rs. One lakh in her treatment. She remained on bed rest for 1 month. She was advised rich protein diet by doctor and she is still recovering.
It is also stated that this accident occurred due to sole negligence of the respondent no. 1/driver of the offending vehicle.
It is also stated that in this regard, an FIR No. 107/2017 U/s 279/337 IPC was registered at P.S. Dwarka South West, Delhi.
It is also stated that because of injury, the petitioner has suffered great mental pain and agony, loss of love and affection, social and financial loss. .
3. DEFENCE:
Joint reply filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 and 2 in which allegations levelled in the petition have been denied and certain preliminary objections have been taken. It is stated that MACT No. 793/2017 Shakuntala Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors. 5 the petitioner/complainant were themselves negligent while crossing the road and got injured on her own without any fault of the respondent and even the respondent helped her and accompanied them to the nearest nursing home. The petitioner was going and respondent saw that a vehicle hit the petitioner and run away and respondent was distance of about 4 to 5 feet behind the vehicle which hit the petitioner's slipped and due to that, the petitioner fell down on the road. The respondent stopped his vehicle and with the help of other person took her to the nearest nursing home and in the nursing home, the petitioner took first aid and thereafter, the respondent left from there. It is also stated that in connivance and after much consultation, the petitioner filed a false complaint against the respondent without even thinking that the respondent has helped him out. It is also stated that the respondent did not hit the petitioner. There is also prayer for the dismissal of the suit.
4. ISSUES:
It is relevant to pen down here that as per order dated 20.1.2018, issue have been framed in leading case titled as Shakuntla Vs. Jai Mangal Sharma bearing MACP No. 719/17.
Further, in case title Shakuntla Vs. Jai Mangal Sharma bearing MACP No. 719/17, it was observed by ld. predecessor of this Court that case titled as "Baleshwar Vs. Jai Mangal Sharma (MACP No. 793/17) arising from the same accident and as common question of law and facts was involved in these MACT No. 793/2017 Shakuntala Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors. 6 cases , therefore, common issues were framed and all these cases were ordered to be consolidated for the purpose of recording of evidence by treating the case titled as Shakuntla Vs. Jai Mangal Sharma bearing MACP No. 719/17 as leading being "Fatal Injury Case"
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:
1. Whether Kalva Devi sustained fatal injuries and Shakuntala sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident dt 09.03.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle (Motor cycle) no. DL 3SB9605 being driven by respondent no. 1 Jai Mangal Sharma and owned by respondent no. 2 Ram Chander?...OPP
2. Whether the petitioners in the above mentioned cases are entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom ? ...OPP
3. Relief.
5. PETITIONER EVIDENCE:
To prove their case, the petitionerShakuntala examined herself as PW1 who tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. PW1 relied upon the following documents.
S. No. No. of Details of Document
Exhibits
1. Ex. PW1/1 Copy of DAR
MACT No. 793/2017 Shakuntala Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors. 7
2. Ex. PW1/2 Photocopy of election ID card of
Shakuntala
The petitionerBaleshwar (in another case) examined himself as PW2 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A. PW2 relied upon Ex. PW2/1 i.e. photocopy of Aadhar Card of Baleshwar, Ex.PW2/2 i.e. photocopy of Aadhar card of Usha Devi, Ex.PW2/3 i.e. Photocopy of Aadhar card of Rina Devi, Ex.PW2/4 i.e. photocopy of Aadhar card of Mukesh Kumar & Ex.PW2/5 i.e. Photocopy of Aadhar card of Jyoti.
6. RESPONDENT EVIDENCE:
Respondent No. 1Jai Mangal examined himself as RW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW1/A. Respondents also got examined ASI Chitter Singh as RW2. He deposed that he was IO of the present case bearing FIR No. 160/17, P.S.Dwark South. He had not taken the photographs of the offending vehicle i.e. motorcycle during the investigation. There was no Zebra crossing near the place of accident. Injured could not identify the accused in TIP proceedings conducted during the investigation.
7. The issuewise findings are as under :
ISSUE No. 11. Whether Kalva Devi sustained fatal injuries and Shakuntala sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident dt 09.03.2017 MACT No. 793/2017 Shakuntala Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors. 8 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle (Motor cycle) no. DL3SB9605 being driven by respondent no. 1 Jai Mangal Sharma and owned by respondent no. 2 Ram Chander?...OPP The onus to prove this issue was conferred upon the petitioners.
At the very outset, it must be said that the present DAR has been filed qua the injury of the petitonerShakuntla Devi, hence, this Tribunal shall restrict itself to adjudicate the case/matter of Shakuntla Devi.
In order to discharge her onus, the petitionerShakuntala examined herself as PW01. PW01 Shakuntala deposed that on 09.03.2017 she alongwith Kalva Devi (deceased) were returning to home from the BSES office Sector6, Dwarka. It was around 12:45 P.M. while crossing the road from sector6 side towards sector2 side, one black colour motorcycle bearing No. DL3SB 9605 driven by the respondent no. 1 in a very rash and negligent manner hit her and Kalva Devi. Upon powerful impact Kalva Devi has suffered fatal injuries and she sustained injury over her body. She was admitted in Ayushman Hospital by unknown person and Kalva Devi was admitted by the respondent no. 1/driver in Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Dwarka Sector1 and later the family members of the deceased were informed that Kalva Devi was declared brought dead on arrival at the hospital.
She also deposed that the abovesaid accident had occurred due to sole negligence of the repondent no. 1/driver of the bike MACT No. 793/2017 Shakuntala Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors. 9 bearing number DL 3SB 9605 which was being driven by its driver Jay Mangal Sharma in a very rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed in total contravention of traffic rules and regulations.
On the other hand, as per the respondent no.1/RW1 Jai Mangal Sharma, the deceased was herself rash and negligent while crossing road and got injury on her own without any fault of the respondent and even the respondent helped her and accompanied her to the nearest nursing home. He further deposed that the respondent stopped his motor cycle and with the help of other person took him to the nearest nursing home and in the nursing home, the petitioner took first aid and thereafter, the respondent left from there. He also deposed that in connivance and after much consultation, the petitioner filed a false complaint against the respondent without even thinking that the respondent has helped him out. The respondent did not hit the petitioner but the petitioner has filed a false case against him for extorting money only.
It is relevant to pen down here that during the cross examination, PW1Shakuntla Devi stated that accident took place with a vehicle of black colour which was a two wheeler and she had seen the driver of the offending vehicle.
The important fact is that this witness i.e PW1Shakuntla Devi was cross examined on behalf of respondent no. 1 and 2 but nothing material has come on record which could assail the credibility or trustworthiness of this witness.
MACT No. 793/2017 Shakuntala Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors. 10 It is also pertinent to mention that the respondent no.1/driver of aforesaid offending vehicle also examined himself as RW01 and during crossexamination, he admitted that he was driving the offending vehicle and the offending vehicle was seized by the police and was still lying in the Malkhana.
Furthermore, as per the crossexamination of RW2/ASIChitter Singh conducted by ld. Counsel for petitioner, he stated that the offending vehicle was lying at the spot of accident when he arrived there and the said offending vehicle belongs to R2 who had informed that the said vehicle was being driven by R1Jai Mangal.
Not only this, the Respondent No. 1 namely Jaimangal Sharma (accused in the State case) has been charge sheeted for offences punishable U/s 279/337/304(A) IPC by the investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by him. Same would also point out towards rash and negligent driving of motorcycle bearing Registration No. DL 3S B 9605 by respondent no. 1.
Even otherwise, while determining the negligence, reliance can be placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 2009 ACJ 287, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that in MACT No. 793/2017 Shakuntala Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors. 11 case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record showing the completion of the investigation by the police or the issuance of charge sheet under section 279/304 A IPC or the certified copy of the FIR in addition to recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach at the conclusion that the driver was negligent. It was further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Further, in Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, it was held that the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident is of secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would make the petition maintainable under section 166 and 140 of the Act.
It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be construed lightly while making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code. This is because the chapter in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with compensation is a benevolent legislation and not a penal one.
This aspect has also been considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as United India Insurance Co.
MACT No. 793/2017 Shakuntala Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors. 12 Ltd. Vd. Smt. Rinki @ Rinku & Ors in MAC App. No. 200/2012 decided on 23/07/2012.
The Hon'ble High Court has held as under: "The Claims Tribunal was conscious of the fact that negligence is a sine qua non to a Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(the Act). It is also true that the proceedings for grant of compensation under the Act are neither governed by the criminal procedures nor are a civil suit. A reference may be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court Bimla Devi and Ors. V Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors, (2009) 13 SC 530 wherein it was held as under:
"In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of any accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimant. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."
In view of abovedecision and considering facts and circumstances of the case, it stands proved that petitioner/injured sustained injuries in motor accident dated 09.03.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle No. DL3SB 9605 which was being driven by respondent no. 1 Jai Mangal Sharma and owned by respondent no. 2/Ram Chander Manjhi at the time of accident.
In light of above, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of MACT No. 793/2017 Shakuntala Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors. 13 the petitioners and against respondents by holding that victimShakuntla Devi sustained injuries in a vehicular accident due to rash and negligent driving of the bearing No. DL3 B 9605 by respondent no. 1.
08. ISSUE No. 2:
Whether the petitioners in the above mentioned cases are entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom ? ...OPP The onus to prove this issue was conferred upon the petitioner.
In order to discharge their onus, the petitioner/PW01 Smt. Shakutla Devi. As per her testimony, on
09.03.2017, she met with an accident and received injuries due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by R01.
In the present case, from the material and evidence on record, it is clear that Shakuntla Devi sustained injuries in motor vehicle accident dated 09.03.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle which was being driven by R1 Jai Mangal Sharma and as such, the petitioner has become entitled to claim compensation for death of the said deceased..
Quantum of compensation payable to the petitioner is ascertained under the following heads:
MACT No. 793/2017 Shakuntala Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors. 14
09. NATURE AND EXTENT OF INJURIES As per the treatment record/MLC pertaining to DDU Hospital, petitioner/ injuredShakuntla has suffered "simple injuries". Furthermore, as per the DAR also, she sustained simple injuries.
Further, the perusal of the record reveals that petitioner/injured has not filed on record any document to show that she has suffered any permanent disability due to the injuries sustained by her in the accident in this case.
10. MEDICINES & TREATMENT In the present case, as per photocopy of treatment record/documents, petitioner/injuredShakuntla Devi was removed to Ayushman Hospital, Delhi and also DDU Hospial and get the medical treatment.
With regard to the treatment undergone by her, petitioner/injuredShakuntla Devi deposed that she had incurred rs. 1 lacs in her treatment. However, she did not rely upon any medical bill/medicines.
In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner/injured shall not be entitled towards medicines and treatment.
11. CONVEYANCE & SPECIAL DIET The petitioner testified that she was advised rich MACT No. 793/2017 Shakuntala Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors. 15 protein diet by doctor. However, as per the medical treatment record, petitioner/ injuredShakuntla Devi is a case of simple injuries. In these circumstances, the petitioner/injured must have visited the hospital/doctors for her treatment and would also have required special diet for certain period to recover from the injuries sustained in the accident.
Further, it is pertinent to note that from the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner/injured has not suffered any permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident in this case. However, she must have remained under treatment for at least for some days or must have taken this much time to recover. This is also apparent from the medical papers dated 09.032017.
In view of the above and in view of the material on record, petitioner/injured is entitled to a sum of ₹2,500/ towards 'conveyance'.
Further, in view of the injuries suffered by her , the petitioner/ injured must have needed special diet for a similar period to have a fast and proper recovery and must have incurred similar expenses. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner/injured is also awarded ₹5,000/ towards expenses for 'special diet'.
12. ATTENDANT CHARGES In the present case, the petitioner/injured has deposed that she remain in bed rest for 1 month. However, she MACT No. 793/2017 Shakuntala Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors. 16 did not rely upon any document regarding the same.
In the instant case, the perusal of the record reveals that petitioner/injured Shakuntla is a case of simple injuries.
In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner/injured shall not be entitled to any amount towards 'Attendant Charges'.
13. PAIN & SUFFERINGS As per the settled law, for assessing the pain & sufferings, the following factors have to be taken into account :
(a) Nature of injury
(b) Parts of body where injuries occurred
(c) Surgeries, if any
(d) Confinement in hospital
(e) Duration of the treatment.
In the instant case, in view of the material/evidence on record, there is no element of doubt that the petitioner/injured is a case of simple injuries sustained by injured due to the said accident. In these circumstances and in view of the law laid down in the case titled as Rekha Jain Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., the petitioner/injured is entitled to compensation on account of pain & suffering due to the accident. The pain and sufferings of petitioner/injured can not be adequately compensated in terms of money however, in view of the facts & circumstances of the present case and in view of the MACT No. 793/2017 Shakuntala Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors. 17 material on record, a sum of ₹10,000/ is awarded to the petitioner towards the head 'pain & sufferings'.
14. LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE & AMENITIES AND PHYSICAL & MENTAL SHOCK The petitioner/injuredShakuntla Devi has not claimed regarding the enjoyment of life and other amenities on account of the accident. Hence, she shall not be entitled for any compensation under this head. However, she is entitled to compensation of ₹10,000/ towards 'mental and physical shock' which is awarded accordingly.
15. The breakup of compensation that has been awarded to the petitioner/ injured Shakuntla Devi is tabulated as below : S.N HEADS AMOUNT (in o. Rupees) 1 Medicines & Treatment Nil
2. Conveyance ₹2,500/
3. Special Diet ₹5,000/
4. Attendant Nil
5. Pain & Sufferings ₹10,000/
6. Loss of Enjoyment of Life and Nil Amenities
7. Compensation for mental and ₹10,000/ physical shock Total ₹27,500/ rounded off to Rs. 28,000/ MACT No. 793/2017 Shakuntala Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors. 18 Accordingly, the total compensation comes to ₹28,000/ (Rupees Twenty Eight thousand Only) and as such, the petitioners shall be entitled to the said amount i.e ₹28,000/ as compensation.
16. INTEREST In the instant case, there is nothing on record, which could justify the withholding of interest on the award amount. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, it will be just and proper to award interest @ 9% per annum on the award amount in this case, in view of the law laid down in Erudhaya Priya vs State Express Transport Corporation Ltd.1 Hence, the petitioner is awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the abovesaid compensation/ award amount i.e. Rs. 28,000/ (Rs. Twenty Eight Thousand only) from the date of filing of petition/DAR i.e. 12.07.2017 till its realization.
17. LIABILITY Now coming to the extent of liability. The offending vehicle bearing no. DL3SB9605 was being driven by respondent no.1Jai Mangal Sharma and owned by respondent no.2 Ram Chander Manjhi at the time of 1Supra, Note 8.
MACT No. 793/2017 Shakuntala Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors. 19 accident. In the DAR, it has alleged that the offending vehicle was without insurance and the respondents have not brought anything on record to the contrary and as such, respondent no.1 Jai Mangal Sharma and respondent no.2 Ram Chander Manjhi shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount to the petitioner.
Hence, issue no.2 is decided accordingly.
18. RELIEF:
Thus in view of the above discussion & observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, an award for a sum of Rs. 28,000/ (Rs. Twenty Eight Thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the petition i.e 12.07.2017 till its realization is passed in favour of the petitioner/injured- Shakuntla Devi and against the respondents.
FORMIVB SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
i) Date of accident : 09.03.2017
ii). Name of the injured : Shakuntla Devi
iii). Age of the injured : 48 years ( at the time of accident)
iv). Occupation of the injured : Housewife (As per DAR) MACT No. 793/2017 Shakuntala Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors. 20
v). Income of the injured : NA
vi). Nature of injury : Simple injuries
vii). Medical treatment taken : Ayushman Hospital & DDU
viii). Period of hospitalization : _____
ix). Whether any permanent : No. If yes, give details
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on medicines and Nil
treatment.
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 2500/
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 5,000/
(iv) Cost of attendant/physiotherapist Nil
(v) Loss of earning capacity
(vi) Any other loss which may require any
special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. Non Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and physical Rs. 10,000/ shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 10,000/
(iii) Loss of amenities of life
(iv) Disfiguration
(v) Loss of marriage prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.,
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and No disability nature of disability as permanent or temporary MACT No. 793/2017 Shakuntala Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors. 21
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N.A. expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity N.A. in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income(Income x % N.A. Earning Capacity x Multiplier) 14 TOTAL COMPENSATION ₹27,500/ rounded off to Rs. 28,000/
15. INTEREST AWARDED
16. Interest amount up to the date of award @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 12.07.217 till its realization.
17. Total amount including interest Rs. 28,000/ + interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR i.e. 12.07.2017 till realization.
18. Award amount released As per table given below
19. Award amount kept in FDRs As per table given below
20. Mode of disbursement of the award By credit in the amount to the claimant(s) (Clause29) SB Account of the petitioner/injure d.
21 Next Date for compliance of the award. 07.06.2023 ( Clause 31)
19. In the instant case, the award amount shall be deposited /transferred by respondents in the Account No. MACT No. 793/2017 Shakuntala Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors. 22 37665510911 of 'MACT (SouthWest), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi ' at State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector10, Dwarka New Delhi, (IFSC Code SBIN0011566 and MICR Code 110002483) by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS under intimation, with proof of notice to the claimant/petitioner and her counsel, to the Nazir of this court .
Further, In view of facts and circumstances of the present case, the award amount shall be disbursed as follows: S.N Name Statu Amount of Release Amount /Period of o. s Award Amount FDR
1. Shakuntla Injure Rs. 28,000/ Rs. 28,000/ .......................
Devih d The abovesaid award amount shall be disbursed through Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme (MACAD Scheme) formulated vide Orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 ( Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
20. Petitioner shall open saving bank account in terms of order dated 20.01.2018, if not opened so far.
Accordingly, the Manager, SBI, District Courts Complex, Dwarka, Sector10, New Delhi is directed to transfer the abovesaid cash amounts to the saving bank account of the abovesaid petitioner after due verification and as per rules.
MACT No. 793/2017 Shakuntala Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors. 23 Managers of the bank where the said petitioner will open her saving account (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner's bank) is directed to release the abovesaid cash amount to the abovesaid petitioner, as per rules, as prayed.
The abovesaid Petitioner's bank is also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the petitioner and if the same have already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued to petitioners.
The abovesaid Petitioner's bank shall permit account holder i.e. the said petitiones to withdraw money from the abovesaid saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form.
Ahlmad is directed to prepare a separate misc. file and put up the same for filing of the compliance report on 07.06.2023.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by REKHA REKHA Date:
2023.04.29
(Announced in the open Court 16:51:24 +0530
on this 28th day of April 2023 (Rekha)
PO, MACT01 (SouthWest District)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi
MACT No. 793/2017 Shakuntala Vs. Jai Mangal & Ors. 24