Delhi District Court
Gautam S/O Sh. Ashok Kumar vs Pawan Kumar S/O Sh. Ram Avtar on 3 February, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. REKHA RANI : JUDGE : MACT : DELHI
MACT No. : 72/11
UNIQUE ID NO. : 02404C0074822011
1. Gautam S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar,
R/o Jhuggy No. A249,
Near Himachal Bhawan,
Sarai Peepal Thala, Delhi. .....Petitioner
Versus
1. Pawan Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Avtar,
R/o I229, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. (Driver)
2. Rajbir Singh S/o Sh. Jageram,
R/o LU Block, H.No.34,
Pitampura Delhi. (Owner)
3. The New India Insurance Company,
A2/3, Lusa Tower, Azadpur, Delhi. (Insurer)
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 19.02.2011
DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 24.01.2014
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.02.2014
AWARD:
1. Gautam (in short the injured) sustained grievous injuries in a
motor vehicle accident on 05.09.2010 at about 7:00 p.m within
MACT No. 72/11 Gautam v. Pawan Kumar 1 of 26
the jurisdiction of PS Mahendra Park. HC Prempal Singh (in
short investigating officer) after completion of investigation
filed detailed accident report (DAR), which was treated as claim
U/s 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 (in short the
Act).
2. Following issues are framed.
(i) Whether petitioner sustained injuries on 05.09.2010 at
about 7:00 p.m at Super Bazar JBlock, Jahangir Puri near bus
stand, Mahendra Park, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving
of bus No. DL1PB5226 by respondent No.1.
(ii) Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) Relief.
3. Petitioner was examined as PW1. Investigating officer was examined as PW2.Dr. G.C. Verma was examined as PW3. Respondents have examined Pawan Kumar as R1W1 and thereafter closed RE.
4. I have carefully perused the material available on the record and also heard counsels for both sides.
ISSUE No.1 QUA NEGLIGENCE MACT No. 72/11 Gautam v. Pawan Kumar 2 of 26
5. Injured was examined as PW1. He deposed that on 05.09.2010 at about 7:00 p.m, he was traveling by blue line bus bearing registration No. DL1PB5226 (in short the offending vehicle). When the offending vehicle reached at Mahindera Park Bus Stand and injured was in the process of getting down its driver Pawan Kumar (in short R1) started the bus suddenly without giving any indication rashly and negligently due to which injured fell down and the rear wheel of the offending vehicle ran over his left leg. He sustained multiple fractures on his left leg. He was removed to BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi by the police where his MLC was prepared. Due to severe injuries he was referred to LNJP Hospital where he remained hospitalised w.e.f 07.09.2010 to 13.10.2010. During the course of his treatment his left leg above knee was amputated. He was further hospitalized from 16.11.2010 to 10.12.2010. Thereafter, he was treated as out door patient at LNJP Hospital. He deposed that he incurred Rs. 20,000/ on his medical treatment, Rs. 10,000/ on conveyance and Rs. 10,000/on special diet. He has suffered 85% permanent disability as per certificate issued by Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital. He is disabled from MACT No. 72/11 Gautam v. Pawan Kumar 3 of 26 doing any job. He further deposed that he was 23 years old at the time of accident and was a labourer at Azadpur Subzi Mandi earning Rs. 6,700/ per month. He further deposed that he cannot do any work now. He also deposed that his family members were also dependent upon him.
6. Injured was crossexamined. However, nothing was brought to my notice which could impugn the veracity of his testimony. There is no crossexamination on his statement that while he was in the process of alighting the bus R1 rashly and negligently drove it as a result whereof injured fell down and his left leg got crushed under the rear wheel of the offending vehicle. There is no crossexamination that accident took place due to negligence and rashness on the part of R1 in driving the offending vehicle.
7. R1 examined himself as R1W1. He deposed that injured was not traveling in the offending vehicle at the time of accident. He stated that injured was crossing the road by running and came in front of his bus all of a sudden and was hit by the bus. He further deposed that he could not see him as he suddenly came in front of the bus from conductor side. It is deposed that accident took place due to negligence on the part of injured MACT No. 72/11 Gautam v. Pawan Kumar 4 of 26 while crossing the road running. In his crossexamination he stated that he did not complaint to any higher authority for his alleged false implication by the investigating officer.
8. As have already observed there is no crossexamination of the injured regarding the manner in which accident took place. In fact there is no crossexamination of the injured on behalf of R1.
9. It has to be borne in mind that Motor Vehicles Act does not stipulate holding a trial for petition preferred under section 166 of the Act. Under Section 168 of the Act, a Claims Tribunal holds an inquiry to determine compensation which must appear to it to be just. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal as was held in State of Mysore v. S.S. Makapur, 1993 (2) SCR 943 by Hon'ble Apex Court.
10. In Bimla Devi and ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors (2009) 13 SC 530, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Claims Tribunals should not insist on strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner and that taking holistic view of the matter, evidence should be examined on the touch stone of preponderance of probability MACT No. 72/11 Gautam v. Pawan Kumar 5 of 26 and not beyond reasonable doubt.
11. The Judgment in Bimla Devi (supra) was relied on by Hon'ble Supreme Court in its latest judgments in Parmeswari v. Amir Chand, (2011) 11 SCC 635 and Kusum Lata v. Satbir (2011) 3 SCC 646. Kaushnuma Begum & Ors v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Appeal (Civil) 6 of 2001: Special Leave Petition (Civil) 1431 of 2000 decided on 2nd July 2012.
12. In National Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Rana & Ors., 2008 II AD (DELHI) 269. Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that "The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondents claimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Meena Variyal. On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced (1) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR No. 955/2001, pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under MACT No. 72/11 Gautam v. Pawan Kumar 6 of 26 Section 279/304A, IPC against the driver,
(iii) certified copy of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant also falls face down."
13. In N.K. V. Brothers (P) Ltd Vs M. Karumal Ammal, AIR 1980 SC 1354 Hon'ble Apex Court observed :
" Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, specially, when truck and bus driver operate nocturnally. This proverbial recklessness often persuades the courts, as has been observed by us earlier in other cases, to draw an initial presumption in several cases based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitar. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here and some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable.
MACT No. 72/11 Gautam v. Pawan Kumar 7 of 26 The court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes".
14. Petitioner has placed on record certified copies of criminal case, which show that R1 pleaded guilty in the court of concerned Magistrate and was accordingly convicted on plea of guilty for offence punishable under section 279 and complainant was allowed to compound offence punishable under section 338 IPC with the accused R1.
15. Learned counsel for The New India Insurance Company (in short R3) contended that accident took place on 05.09.2010 whereas FIR was registered on 08.01.2011. Therefore, it is doubtful whether the injured got disabled in the accident in question. Investigating officer was examined as PW2. He stated that he met the injured at BJRM Hospital on 05.09.2010 where he refused to make a statement saying that he was negotiating with the owner of the offending vehicle for compromise. Further he stated that the injured was not in a position to give statement during his treatment at LNJP Hospital. He also stated that the doctor had opined on 15.09.2010 that injured was unfit for statement.
16. Respondents have not proved that there is deliberate and MACT No. 72/11 Gautam v. Pawan Kumar 8 of 26 intentional delay in lodging the FIR. Reference may be made to Smt. Sumitra Kaur and Another v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. through Divisional Manager, 2012(4) T.A.C. 799 (All.), decided on 20.07.2012, in which there was no FIR at all and even then Hon'ble High Court held that even if no FIR is lodged and even if no postmortem report is available, Tribunal may award compensation if it is satisfied that accident occurred and victim had suffered injuries.
17. Similarly in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Gurubari and Another, 2013 (1) T.A.C. 227 (Jhar.), decided on 14.06.2012, there was inordinate delay of about 11 years in filing claim petition. Maintainability of the claim petition was challenged. Hon'ble High Court held that Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial/benevolent legislation aimed at providing relief to victims or their families technicalities of limitation should not come in the way of claimants.
18. In view of plea of guilt and unchallenged testimony of PW1 in the instant case, it is held that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the MACT No. 72/11 Gautam v. Pawan Kumar 9 of 26 respondents.
ISSUE No.2 Qua quantum of compensation
19. Section 166 of the Act mandates payment of just compensation. In General Manager, Kerala Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas & Ors., (1994) 2 SCC 176, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed: "5...... The determination of the quantum must answer what contemporary society "would deem to be a fair sum such as would allow the wrongdoer to hold up his head among his neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the fair thing". The amount awarded must not be niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free society in generous scales'. All this means that the sum awarded must be fair and reasonable by accepted legal standards."
20. In Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2010) 10 SCC 254. Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that while awarding compensation in personal injury cases, an attempt should be made to put the injured in the same position as he was as far as money can do.
"9. We do not intend to review in detail state of authorities in relation to assessment of all damages for personal injury. Suffice MACT No. 72/11 Gautam v. Pawan Kumar 10 of 26 it to say that the basis of assessment of all damages for personal injury is compensation. The whole idea is to put the claimant in the same position as he was insofar as money can. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that the victim has done no wrong; he has suffered at the hands of the wrongdoer and the court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered."
21. In Kavita v. Deepak & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 5945/2012 decided on 22.08.2012, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an attempt should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical disability but also for the loss of earning and inability to lead a normal life and enjoy usual amenities of life.
22. Now turning to the evidence in this case petitioner deposed that on account of the injuries caused in the accident he was permanently disabled to the extent of 85% with respect to amputation of his left leg above knee. He examined Dr. G.C. Verma, J.R. Specialist Orthopedic, from BSA Hospital, Delhi, who deposed that petitioner sustained 85% permanent disability in relation to left lower limb.
MACT No. 72/11 Gautam v. Pawan Kumar 11 of 26 LOSS OF INCOME
23. There is no dispute that injured remained hospitalized at LNJP Hospital w.e.f 07.09.2010 to 13.10.2010 and later on from 16.11.2010 to 10.12.2010. Thereafter, he remained under treatment as an OPD patient till 11.04.2011. It can reasonably be inferred that with the kind of injuries he sustained, petitioner must not have able to do any work for about 6 months.
24. In his affidavit he deposed that he was working as labourer/Palledar earning Rs. 6,700/ per month.
25. Petitioner was cross examined and stated that he did not have any document to prove his income. Learned counsel for R3 contended that in absence of any documentary evidence regarding income of the injured minimum wages of unskilled may be considered.
26. In ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Hari Singh & Ors. MAC APP No. 122/2011, it was urged by LRs of the deceased that she used to sell milk and milk products at her house and was earning Rs.15,000/ per month. It was contended by Ld. Counsel for LRs of the deceased that Claims Tribunal ought to have accepted the deceased's income at Rs.15,000/ per MACT No. 72/11 Gautam v. Pawan Kumar 12 of 26 month. Since no documentary evidence with regard to deceased's income was produced, Claims Tribunal was held right in awarding loss of dependency on minimum wages.
27. As per disability certificate bearing No. 943, dated 20.05.2011 of injured, prepared at Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Ex.PW3/A injured suffered 85% disability. Keeping in view the disability sustained petitioner or must have suffered loss of income for at least 6 months. So he is granted Rs. 5278x6= Rs. 31,668/.
Loss of earning capacity
28. Petitioner suffered amputation of his left lower limb resulting into 85% disability. Petitioner deposed that on account of amputation of his leg, he is unable to walk or do any work.
29. Dr. G.C. Verma, J.R Specialist Orthopedic, from BSA Hospital, Delhi, as PW2 stated that the patient having above knee amputation suffered 85% permanent disability in relation to left lower limb.
30. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr., 2011 (1) SCC 343, Supreme Court held that compensation on account of loss of earning capacity has to be granted in accordance with the nature MACT No. 72/11 Gautam v. Pawan Kumar 13 of 26 of job of the victim of motor accident.
"11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation (see for example, the decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2010 (10) SCC 254 and Yadava Kumar v.
D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2010 (10) SCC 341.
x x x x
14. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a MACT No. 72/11 Gautam v. Pawan Kumar 14 of 26 carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of 'loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity."
31. Learned counsel for R3 has contended that disability of injured MACT No. 72/11 Gautam v. Pawan Kumar 15 of 26 may be taken as 45% (50% of 85%) in view of various judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Hon'ble Apex Court.
32. In New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Sohanveer Singh & Ors. MAC.APP 615/2008, decided on 27.08.2012, the petitioner suffered 80% disability on account of amputation of left leg above knee and fracture on the right leg in a motor vehicle accident. Petitioner was working as a professional photographer and was earning Rs. 7,000/ per month. On loss of earning capacity of the claimant Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that petitioner could carry out his work from the studio and engage another person whenever the work at a location outside is to be carried out. Accordingly loss of earning capacity was assessed at 40%.
33. In Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Poonam Arora & Ors. MAC.APP.833/2010, decided on 01.08.2012, permanent disability to the extent of 60% in respect of her right lower limb. On loss of earning capacity Hon'ble High Court observed that it would be very difficult to say how the injuries suffered by her would have an impact of earning capacity as injured was still a MACT No. 72/11 Gautam v. Pawan Kumar 16 of 26 student going to school and accordingly assessed loss of earning capacity at 40%.
34. In Vidya Dhar Sharma v. Badri Prasad & Ors. MAC.APP. 919/2011, decided 03.12.2012, claimant suffered amputation of his right hand above elbow resulting in 80% permanent disability in respect of his right upper limb. Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that in absence of any proof of the exact nature of work performed by the petitioner loss of future earning capacity was assessed at 40% (50% of 80%).
35. Similarly in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Arun Kumar & Ors. MAC.APP.225/2010, decided on 23.11.2012, on account of amputation of right leg above knee, the Claimant suffered 85% permanent disability in respect of his right lower limb. Hon'ble Delhi High Court assessed future loss of earning capacity as 45% instead of 85% observing that he did not produce any evidence with regard to his employment.
36. In these cases injured had not produced any evidence with regard to the nature of his work, occupation or employment. Accordingly functional disability was assessed at 50% of whole body. In the instant case injured was stated that he was a MACT No. 72/11 Gautam v. Pawan Kumar 17 of 26 labourer. His occupation was not challenged, although his income from the said work was assailed. Injured sails in the same boat as injured in the following case.
37. In Nagarajappa v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., II(2011) ACC 308 (SC), decided on 11.04.2011, doctor had assessed permanent residual physical disability of upper limb at 68% and 2223% of whole body. Claimant was working as coolie for which he required use of both his hands. For computation of loss of future income due to disability. Tribunal took into consideration that disability of the whole body of the claimant had been assessed at 23%, however, his right hand was still free to work. Thus, it assessed disability at 20%. Hon'ble Apex Court assessed disability as 68% and not 20% and observed as under: "The appellant is working as a manual labourer, for which he requires the use of both his hands. The fact that the accident has left him with one useless hand will severely affect his ability to perform his work as a Coolie or any other manual work, and this has also been certified by the doctor. Thus, while awarding compensation it has to be kept in mind that MACT No. 72/11 Gautam v. Pawan Kumar 18 of 26 the appellant is to do manual work for the rest of his life without full use of his left hand, and this is bound to affect the quality of his work and also his ability to find work considering his disability. Hence, while computing loss of future income, disability should be taken to be 68% and not 20%, as was done by the Tribunal and the High Court. Our view is supported from the ratio in Raj Kumar (supra) and from the fact that the appellant is severely hampered and perhaps forever handicapped from performing his occupation as a Collie"
38. Petitioner in this case has claimed to be a labourer. His occupation was not seriously challenged in his cross examination. Obviously on account of his left leg amputation he would be handicapped in moving from one place to another and doing any labour work. He will have to do some work sitting at one place and earn his livelihood. So in view of the judgment in Nagarajappa (supra) his functional disability is assessed at 85%.
39. As per his identity card Ex.PW1/2, bearing No. AKC0257808, issued by Election Commission of India, he was 22 years old as on 01.01.2008. Accident occurred on 05.09.2010, so he was about 24 years at the time of accident.
MACT No. 72/11 Gautam v. Pawan Kumar 19 of 26
40. In Rajesh & Others v. Rajbir Singh & Others 2013(6) SCALE 563, deceased was around 33 years of age at the time of accident. He was survived by his widow and minor children.
He was working as a clerk in a Government School. Claims Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 8,96,500/. On appeal Hon'ble High Court enhanced the total compensation to Rs. 10,17,000/. On further appeal to Hon'ble Apex Court total compensation was enhanced to Rs. 22,81,320/. Hon'ble Apex Court observed that compensation under section 168 has to be "just, fair and equitable" to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong as far as money can do.
41. Hon'ble Apex Court referred to Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Others 2012(4) SCALE 559 in which it was observed that even in absence of any evidence as to future prospects and increase of 30% in the income has to be provided where the victim had fixed income or was a self employed person. Relevant extract of the order is as follows: "18. Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three lines of paragraph 24 of Sarla Verm's judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in MACT No. 72/11 Gautam v. Pawan Kumar 20 of 26 the income of a person who is selfemployed or who is paid fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income over a period of time and if he/she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation."
42. However to make compensation just fair and equitable Hon'ble Apex Court observed:
11. Since, the Court in Santosh Devi's case (supra) actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid in Sarla Verma's case (supra) and to make it applicable also to the selfemployed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30% always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of self employed or persons with fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any. Addition should be 30% in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years. In Sarla Verma's MACT No. 72/11 Gautam v. Pawan Kumar 21 of 26 case (supra), it has been stated that in the case of those above 50 years, there shall be no addition. Having regard to the fact that in the case of those selfemployed or on fixed wages, where there is normally no age of superannuation, we are of the view that it will only be just and equitable to provide an addition of 15% in the case where the victim is between the age group of 50 to 60 years so as to make the compensation just, equitable, fair and reasonable. There shall normally be no addition thereafter".
43. As such petitioner is entitled to addition of 50% while computing the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
44. Following Rajesh (supra) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Maya Devi and Ors. MAC APP 260/2006 decided on 11th September, 2013 and in Rajpal & Ors v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. MAC APP 405/2013 decided on 17th September 2013 granted 50% towards future prospect. Thus loss of earning capacity comes to Rs. (5278/ +50% x12x18x85%)=Rs.14,53,561/ ATTENDANT CHARGES
45. With the nature of disability suffered by the petitioner he MACT No. 72/11 Gautam v. Pawan Kumar 22 of 26 definitely needed an attended to carry out his day to day work for at least 6 months. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in DTC v. Lalit AIR 1981 Delhi 558 held that victim is entitled to compensation even if no attendant is hired and some family member renders gratuitous services.
46. In Gulam Nabi Bhat v. Mohd. Arman Ali & Ors. MAC.APP. 335/2009, decided on 07.08.2012, the appellant had become paraplegic and totally disabled. Hon'ble Delhi High Court assessed functional disability at 100% and regarding compensation towards attendant charges, it was observed as under:
"21. The Appellant examined PW6 Mustaq Ahmed Meer who deposed that he was working as an Attendant with the Appellant and was being paid '3,000/ per month. In the facts and circumstances, I would award a compensation towards Attendant charges @ '2,000/ per month which would come to '4,08,000/ (2000/x12x17) as against a sum of '1,50,000/ awarded by the Claims Tribunal."
Accordingly petitioner is granted attendant charges for six months of his inability to work at all during his treatment at Rs. 2,000/ p.m. which comes to Rs. (2,000 x 6) Rs. 12,000/. NONPECUNIARY DAMAGES MACT No. 72/11 Gautam v. Pawan Kumar 23 of 26
47. Having suffered 85% permanent disability, petitioner will not be able to enjoy usual amenities of life. Delhi High Court in Harmohinder Singh v. Mangal Prasad & Ors MAC APP 815/2010 vide its order dated 27.08.2012 observed: "26. It is difficult to measure in terms of money the pain and suffering which is suffered by the claimant on account of serious injuries caused to him in a motor accident. Since the compensation is required to be paid for pain and suffering an attempt must be made to award compensation which may have some objective relation with the pain and suffering underwent by the victim of a motor accident. For this purpose, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts normally consider the nature of injury; the parts of the body where the injuries were sustained; surgeries (if any) underwent by the victim; confinement in the hospital and the duration of the treatment.
27. In case of Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 10 SCC 683, where a victim aged about 24 years suffered amputation of one leg above knee, a compensation of Rs. 1.5 lacs was awarded towards pain and suffering and another sum of Rs. 1.5 lacs was awarded towards loss of amenities in life and loss of marriage prospects.
Accordingly, petitioner is granted Rs. 1.5 lacs towards pain MACT No. 72/11 Gautam v. Pawan Kumar 24 of 26 and suffering and Rs. 1.5 lacs towards deprivation of amenities in life and disfigurement.
MEDICAL TREATMENT EXPENSES
48. There are medical bills verified by the investigating officer in the sum of Rs. 2,124/. There is no cross examination on this. As such said sum of Rs. 2,124/ is awarded towards treatment expenses.
49. The compensation awarded is tabulated below: Sl. No Compensation under various heads Amount awarded
1. Loss of income Rs. 31,668/ 2 Loss of Earning Capacity Rs. 14,53,561/
3. Attendant Charges Rs. 12,000/
4. Medical Treatment Rs. 2,124/
5. Pain and Suffering Rs. 1,50,000/
6. Deprivation of amenities in life and Rs. 1,50,000/ disfigurement
7. Conveyance Rs. 25,000/
8. Special diet Rs. 15,000/ Total Rs. 18,39,353/ The over all compensation comes to Rs. 18,14,353/ (Rs. 18,39,35325,000) after deduction of interim award.
50. R3 is accordingly directed to deposit the above mentioned MACT No. 72/11 Gautam v. Pawan Kumar 25 of 26 awarded amount within 30 days from today with this Tribunal with interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till notice of deposit of award amount to be given by R3 to petitioner/ his counsel.
51. In view of the judgment in Susamma Thomas & Others (supra) for appropriate investments to safeguard the amount from being frittered away by the petitioner owing to his ignorance, illiteracy and being susceptible to exploitation, following arrangements are hereby ordered:
An amount of Rs. 1 lac be released to him out of awarded amount. Remaining amount with proportionate interest be kept in three FDRs for three years each.
52. The interest on the aforesaid fixed deposit shall be paid monthly by automatic credit of interest in his Saving Account.
53. The petitioner shall not have any facility of loan or advance on the FDR. However, in case of emergent need, he may approach this Tribunal for premature encashment of FDR.
54. The petition is accordingly disposed of. File be consigned to record room. Copy of order be given to parties for compliance.
Announced in the open Court Judge MACT
today i.e. 03.02.2014 Rohini Courts, Delhi
MACT No. 72/11 Gautam v. Pawan Kumar 26 of 26