Delhi District Court
Urmila(Dar) vs Netrapal Singh (506/21Kj) on 29 November, 2024
:1:
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARU GUPTA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-01 (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT:03/22
Urmila v. Netrapal
CNR No.: DLSE01-000513-2022
1. Smt.Urmila
W/o Sh. Sanju
R/o H.No.859, H-block
Gali No.16, Sangam Vihar
New Delhi.
......Petitioner/claimant
Versus
1. Sh. Netrapal
S/o Sh. Jaipal Singh
R/o H.No.16/2168,
Sangam Vihar
Delhi.
........Driver/ Respondent no. 1
2. Sh. Sadab Akhtar R/o F-116, Old Seemapuri New Delhi.
......Owner/Respondent on.2
3. Go-digit General Insurance Company 61, IFCI Tower 5th Floor, , New Delhi-110001.
....Insurance company/Respondent no.3 Date of accident : 12.07.2021 Date of filing of DAR : 21.01.2022 MACT NO:03/22 Urmila v. Netrapal P.No. 1 Of 15 BK :2: Result of accident : Injury Date of Decision : 29.11.2024 AWARD
1. The present accident claim is based on a detailed accident report (DAR) filed by the police in terms of provisions of MV Act.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 12.07.2021 at Nehru Place red light, near Paras Chowk, injured /petitioner Urmila was hit from behind by an Auto bearing registration no. DL1RP9049(hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle). She was taken to AIIMS Trauma center for treatment.
3. An FIR no.0505 of 2021 dated 12.07.2021 was registered u/s 279,337 of IPC at PS Kalkaji and the matter was investigated. After investigation a charge sheet was filed before concerned criminal court against the driver of the offending vehicle(Respondent no.1) while DAR was filed before this Tribunal.
4. Respondent no.1 is driver, Respondent no.2 is owner of offending vehicle, and Respondent no.3 is the insurance company with which the offending vehicle was insured.
5. Vide order dated 28.02.2022, matter was dismissed in default as well as for non-prosecution. Thereafter an application dated 28.02.2022 was moved for restoration of petition and vide order dated 29.11.2024, matter was restored to its original number.
6. In response to the DAR, as per order dated 26.11.2024, insurance company/Respondent no.3 as well as driver/owner of the offending vehicle chose not to contest the matter or file MACT NO:03/22 Urmila v. Netrapal P.No. 2 Of 15 BK :3: reply/written statement.
7. There is no statutory defence raised by any of the respondents and thus, there is no technical requirement of even framing of issues in as much as the fact of accident occurring due to rash and negligent driving has not been disputed.
Reliance is placed on decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. v. Jaibir Singh & Ors.(FAO No.842/2003, decided on 08.01.2021), wherein it was observed:
"...13.10. If an allegation is denied, the respondent must state his reasons for the denial and if necessary, put forward his own version of events. Subject to certain exceptions,the general rule is that if a defendant fails to deal with an allegation, it is to be taken as an admission. 13.11. If following this procedure which is generally collection of documents, a case appears to be one which can be disposed of at the first hearing, it should be so disposed of. There can, however, be cases where there is need for further inquiry. But that will have to depend upon whether a sufficient defence has been raised.
13.12. If the case needs further inquiry, the Court may frame issues..."
8. As such, since all the material stood collected by the investigating officer by way of preparation of a detailed accident report and no specific defence has been raised by any of the respondents, this Tribunal finds it to be a fit case which does not require any further inquiry or need to frame issues. As no issues have been framed, the petitioner has been exempted from leading evidence to prove her case and similarly since there is no specific defence, respondents have chosen not to lead any evidence.
9. Final arguments have been heard on behalf of both the parties.
10. In order to decide the present claim petition, it is apposite to note that as a settled principle of law, proceedings under The MACT NO:03/22 Urmila v. Netrapal P.No. 3 Of 15 BK :4: Motor Vehicle Act are not considered akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not applicable. Reliance is placed upon decision in Bimla Devi & ors. vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors. (2009) 13 SC 535, in Parmeshwari vs. Amir Chand & Ors., 2011 (1) SCR 1096 and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ 287, wherein it has been held that the negligence has to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view has to be taken.
In the present case, since no defence has been raised regarding negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and no denial regarding such allegations of accident occurring due to rash and negligent driving have been put forth, the issue of negligence is taken as an admission and accordingly decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
11. As regards the quantum of compensation and the respondent who is liable to pay the same, this court is governed by the law laid down by Hon'le Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 Supreme Court cases 343, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. (2003) 6SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.(2017) 16 SCC 680. The gist of the law is that the object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is MACT NO:03/22 Urmila v. Netrapal P.No. 4 Of 15 BK :5: inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned.
12. Further, it is noted that the heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
12.1. In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be MACT NO:03/22 Urmila v. Netrapal P.No. 5 Of 15 BK :6: awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). 12.2. It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii),
(v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.
12.3. Assessment of pecuniary damages under Item (i) and under Item (ii) (a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence.
12.4. Award under the head of future medical expenses--Item
(iii)--depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof.
12.5. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages--Items (iv), (v) and (vi)--involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decisions of Hon'ble SC and Hon'ble High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. 12.6. It was observed by Hon'ble Sc in such case of Raj Kumar (supra) that what usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability
--Item (ii) (a).
12.7. We are not concerned with assessment regarding loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability in this case, as MACT NO:03/22 Urmila v. Netrapal P.No. 6 Of 15 BK :7: petitioner did not suffer any permanent disability.
13. As per record, Aadhar card of the injured/petitioner, year of birth of petitioner is 1983. Same has not been disputed. Accident occurred on 12.07.2021. As such, petitioner would have been about 38 years at the time of accident.
As per MLC of the injured prepared at Jai Prakash Narain Apex Trauma Center, New Delhi, injured was diagnosed with abrasion on left hand and below knee. The doctor preparing MLC has opined the injury to be simple in nature.
14. Petitioner has not filed any medical bills qua treatment of injury received in the accident or of contemporary period. Even the medical documents i.e. OPD card filed on 26.11.2024 pertains to 28.04.2022 and 05.07.2024 i.e. much after the accident. Further, the MLC on record reflects injury on the left hand and below the knee while the OPD card filed at belated stage pertains to spine injury and thus has no nexus with the accident or may have been subsequently sustained. In absence of any medical bills pertaining to the injury sustained in the accident, compensation towards treatment has to be granted on approximation basis. Considering the nature of injury Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards medical expenses incurred, Rs.5000/- towards conveyance charges, Rs.5000/- towards special diet.
15. Since there is no proof of hospitalization or continuous bed rest prescribed by any doctor, no compensation can be awarded towards loss of income.
16. In this background of material and evidence on record, in the present case having regard to the law as also discussed above regarding compensation, in the present case award amount is MACT NO:03/22 Urmila v. Netrapal P.No. 7 Of 15 BK :8: calculated as under:
Sl. Pecuniary loss : - Quantum
no.
1. (I) Expenditure on treatment : Rs.5,000/-
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance : Rs.5,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : Rs.5,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing / attendant : Nil
(v) Loss of income : Nil
(vi) Cost of artificial limbs (if Not applicable
applicable) :
(vii) Any other loss / expenditure : Not applicable
2. Non-Pecuniary Loss :
(I) Compensation of mental and physical Rs.5,000/-
shock :
(ii) Pain and suffering : Rs.5,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life : Rs.5,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration : Nil
(v) Loss of marriage prospects : NA
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity (I) Percentage of disability assessed and NA nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of NA expectation of life span on account of disability :
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity NA in relation to disability: In this case no permanent disability is proved on record.
(iv) Loss of future Income: NA
Total Compensation Rs.30,000/-
MACT NO:03/22 Urmila v. Netrapal P.No. 8 Of 15 BK
:9:
Deduction, if any Nil
Total compensation after deduction Rs.30,000/-
Interest: Simple interest
@7.5% p.a.
from the date
of filing of
DAR till
actual
realization of
Award
amount/
compensation.
LIABILITY
17. As already discussed, principal award amount/
compensation will be payable by Insurance company/
Respondent no.3 with simple interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR till actual realization.
In case, the interest of petitioner was stopped or excluded during the present inquiry proceedings, same is liable to be adjusted from the total interest calculated on the Award amount. Further, period from dismissal of the matter till its restoration, petitioner is not entitled to any interest. Similarly, amount awarded and released as interim Award, if any, during pendency of the case, be deducted from the total compensation amount.
Directions Regarding Deposit of Award Amount in Bank:
18. In compliance of directions issued vide order dated 16.11.2021 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition Civil No.534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.
MACT NO:03/22 Urmila v. Netrapal P.No. 9 Of 15 BK : 10 : Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India the award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT SAVING ACCOUNT No. 00000042706875094, IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir in the prescribed format i.e. MCOP Number on the file of (Claims Tribunal Name) Date of award, Compensation Amount, Income Tax Deduction at Source, Bank Transaction Reference No./Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. In turn, the State Bank of India, Saket Courts Branch shall receive the deposited sum and capture the above information and furnish a statement of account on a daily basis to the Nazir of this Tribunal to reconcile the deposits of compensation and the respective MCOPs towards which such deposits are made. On such deposits being made, the insurance company shall submit a letter to the Nazir of this Tribunal enclosing a copy of the said bank advice, in prescribed format as above, as per which the deposit made to the bank account of this Tribunal, to enable this Tribunal to keep tab on the deposits made and the MCOPs for which they were made. The Payment advice for remittance of compensation is as under:
PAYMENT ADVICE FOR REMITTANCE OF
COMPENSATION :
............ Bank ................... To:
............... Court ........................ We confirm remittance of compensation as follows on instructions of ................................... (insurance company):-
MCOP Number On the file of (Claims Tribunal Name), Place Date of award Amount Deposited, Income Tax Deduction at MACT NO:03/22 Urmila v. Netrapal P.No. 10 Of 15 BK : 11 : Source, if any Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. Insurance company of offending vehicle, on deposit, shall also send a copy of the payment advice in above format to this Tribunal and serve a copy of the same on the claimants or their counsel as the case may be.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP).
19. This court is in receipt of the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors whereby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has formulated MACAD(Motor Accident Claims Annunity Deposit Scheme) which has been made effective from 01.01.2019. The said orders dated 07.12.2018 also mentions that 21 banks including State Bank of India is one of such banks which are to adhere to MACAD. The State Bank of India, Saket Courts, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Apportionment:-
20. Another issue which is to be decided is out of such Award amount, how much is to be released at present and how much is to kept in the form of FDR for future financial used of the petitioner.
21. At this stage, it is relevant to the refer to the judgment of A. V. Padma & Ors. Vs., R. Venugopal & Ors. (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 378:
"......In the case of Susamma Thomas (supra), this MACT NO:03/22 Urmila v. Netrapal P.No. 11 Of 15 BK : 12 : Court issued certain guidelines in order to "safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries due to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation".
Even as per the guidelines issued by this Court Court, long term fixed deposit of amount of compensation is mandatory only in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows. In the case of illiterate claimants, the Tribunal is allowed to consider the request for lumpsum payment for effecting purchase of any movable property such as agricultural implements, rickshaws etc. to earn a living. However, in such cases, the Tribunal shall make sure that the amount is actually spent for the purpose and the demand is not a ruse to withdraw money. In the case of semi-illiterate claimants, the Tribunal should ordinarily invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. But if the Tribunal is satisfied for reasons to be stated in writing that the whole or part of the amount is required for expanding an existing business or for purchasing some property for earning a livelihood, the Tribunal can release the whole or part of the amount of compensation to the claimant provided the Tribunal will ensure that the amount is invested for the purpose for which it is demanded and paid. In the case of literate persons, it is not mandatory to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit.
The expression used in guideline No. (iv) issued by this Court is that in the case of literate persons also the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i), whereas in the guideline Nos.
(i), (ii), (iii) and (v), the expression used is that the Tribunal should. Moreover, in the case of literate persons, the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i) only if, having regard to the age, fiscal background and strata of the society to which the claimant belongs and such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks that in the MACT NO:03/22 Urmila v. Netrapal P.No. 12 Of 15 BK : 13 : larger interest of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded, it is necessary to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit.
Thus, sufficient discretion has been given to the Tribunal not to insist on investment of the compensation amount in long term fixed deposit and to release even the whole amount in the case of literate persons. However, the Tribunals are often taking a very rigid stand and are mechanically ordering in almost all cases that the amount of compensation shall be invested in long term fixed deposit. They are taking such a rigid and mechanical approach without understanding and appreciating the distinction drawn by this Court in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows and in the case of semiliterate and literate persons. It needs to be clarified that the above guidelines were issued by this Court only to safeguard the interests of the claimants, particularly the minors, illiterates and others whose amounts are sought to be withdrawn on some fictitious grounds. The guidelines were not to be understood to mean that the Tribunals were to take a rigid stand while considering an application seeking release of the money.
The guidelines cast a responsibility on the Tribunals to pass appropriate orders after examining each case on its own merits. However, it is seen that even in cases when there is no possibility or chance of the feed being frittered away by the beneficiary owing to ignorance, illiteracy or susceptibility to exploitation, investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit is directed by the Tribunals as a matter of course and in a routine manner, ignoring the object and the spirit of the guidelines issued by this Court and the genuine requirements of the claimants. Even in the case of literate persons, the Tribunals are automatically ordering investment of the amount of compensation MACT NO:03/22 Urmila v. Netrapal P.No. 13 Of 15 BK : 14 : in long term fixed deposit without recording that having regard to the age or fiscal background or the strata of the society to which the claimant belongs or such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks it necessary to direct such investment in the larger interests of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded to him.
The Tribunals very often dispose of the claimant's application for withdrawal of the amount of compensation in a mechanical manner and without proper application of mind. This has resulted in serious injustice and hardship to the claimants. The Tribunals appear to think that in view of the guidelines issued by this Court, in every case the amount of compensation should be invested in long term fixed deposit and under no circumstances the Tribunal can release the entire amount of compensation to the claimant even if it is required by him. Hence a change of attitude and approach on the part of the Tribunals is necessary in the interest of justice..."
22. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and the abovesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Supreme Court, whole of Award amount is released to the petitioner/injured, alongwith simple interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR till its actual realization, in his bank account near his place of residence as per rule/ directions.
23. In accordance with the orders dated 08.02.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 in Rajesh Tyagi and others Vs. Jaibir Singh and others, Nodal Officer of the bank shall ensure the disbursement of the award amount within three weeks of the receipt of the e-mail as mentioned in the MACT NO:03/22 Urmila v. Netrapal P.No. 14 Of 15 BK : 15 : orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
FORM -VI-B SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1 Date of accident 12.07.2021 2 Name of injured Urmila 3 Age of the injured 38 years 4 Occupation of the injured NA 5 Income of the injured Na 6 Nature of injury Simple 7 Medical treatment taken by Apex Trauma Center injured 8 Period of Hospitalization of Nil injured 9 Whether any permanent NA disability injured
24. List for compliance on 09.01.2025.
Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA
Date:
Announced in open Court GUPTA 2024.11.29
16:48:03
On 29th November, 2024 +0530
(Charu Gupta)
PO-MACT-01(South-East)
Saket Court/ New Delhi
MACT NO:03/22 Urmila v. Netrapal P.No. 15 Of 15 BK