Delhi District Court
Umesh Kumar vs Krishan Kumar And Anr on 19 September, 2023
IN THE COURT OF JAGDISH KUMAR: PO:MACT02 SOUTH
WEST): DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
MACT No. 2453/2016
FIR No. 282/2016
PS: BHD Nagar
Umesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Hosiyar Singh
R/O House No. 926/25,
Ward No. 14, Bahadurgarh,
District Jhajjar, Haryana. ...... Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Krishan Kumar
S/o Sh. Banwari Lal
R/o Village Dwani P.O. Budhwal,
Tehsil Behror Alwar, Rajasthan.
2. Union of India
ThroughD.I.G.
CRPF Pinjore, Panchkula,
Panchkula, Haryana134109
....Respondents
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 15.12.2016
AWARD RESERVED ON : 19.09.2023
DATE OF AWARD : 19.09.2023
FORM - IV B
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident: 08.10.2016
2. Name of injured: Umesh Kumar
3. Age of the injured: 26 years
4. Occupation of the injured: Driver & Private Job MACT No. 2453/2016 Umesh Kumar Vs. Krishan Kumar Page No. 1 of 12
5. Income of the injured: 25,000/ per month
6. Nature of injury: Grievous Injury
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured: RTRM Hospital and Brahm Shakti Sanjivani Super Specialty Hospital Rohtak Road Bahadurgarh,Haryana.
8. Period of hospitalization: 08.10.2016 to 17.10.2012.
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details. No.
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 1,00,000/
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 10,000/
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 10,000/
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 10,000/
(v) Loss of earning capacity Nil
(vi) Loss of income Rs. 77,460/
(vii) Any other loss which may require any special Nil treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. NonPecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and physical shock Rs. 50,000/
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 25,000/
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Nil
(iv) Disfiguration Nil
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, hardships, As above.
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 nature of Nil disability as permanent or temporary MACT No. 2453/2016 Umesh Kumar Vs. Krishan Kumar Page No. 2 of 12
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life Nil span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in Nil relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (Income X%Earning Nil capacity X Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.2,82,460/After calculation
15. INTEREST AWARDED 7.5% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the date of compliance As per calculation
17. Total amount including interest As per calculation
18. Award amount released 20%
19. Award amount kept in FDRs 80%
20. Mode of disbursement of the award amount to Phased manner the claimant (s) (Clause29)
21. Next date for compliance of the award. (Clause 18.10.2023
31) FORM - V COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of the accident 08.10.2016
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the investigating 15.12.2016 officer to the Claims Tribunal (Clause 2)
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the investigating N/A officer to the insurance company. (Clause 2)
4. Date of filing of Report under section 173 Cr.P.C. before Not known the Metropolitan Magistrate (Clause 10)
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information Report N/A (DAR) by the investigating Officer before Claims Tribunal (Clause 10)
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance Company (Clause N/A
11) MACT No. 2453/2016 Umesh Kumar Vs. Krishan Kumar Page No. 3 of 12
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant(s). (Clause 11)
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? (Clause 16) N/A
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed later on? N/A
10. Whether the police has verified the documents filed with N/A DAR? (Clause 4)
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Yes. Directions are Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction being issued as per warranted? Hon'ble High Court to all DCPs/CP, Delhi.
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the Not known insurance Company. (Clause20)
13. Name, address and contact number of the Designated do Officer of the Insurance Company. (Clause 20)
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Insurance Company No submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR? (Clause
20)
15. Whether the insurance company admitted the liability? If N/A so, whether the Designated Officer of the insurance company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law. (Clause 23)
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the do Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer of the NA Insurance Company. (Clause 24)
18. Date of the Award 19.09.2023
19. Whether the award was passed with the consent of the No parties? (Clause 22)
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open saving bank Yes account(s) near their place of residence? (Clause 18)
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to open 26.04.2018 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 MACT No. 2453/2016 Umesh Kumar Vs. Krishan Kumar Page No. 4 of 12 passbook(s). (Clause 18)
22. Date on which the claimant (s) produced the passbook of 11.05.2023 their saving bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhar Card? (Clause 18)
23. Permanent Residential Address of the Claimant(s) (Clause R/O House No.
27) 926/25, Ward No. 14, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, Haryana.
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the claimant(s) and the SB A/C No. address of the bank with IFSC Code (Clause 27) 110113752009, IFSC Code:
CNRB0019268 at Canara Bank, Najafgarh Road, Delhi.
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank account(s) is near his Not known place of residence? (Clause 27)
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the time of No passing of the award.
27. Account number, MICR number IFSC Code, name and Account No. branch of the bank of the Claims Tribunal in which the 37665510911 award amount is to be deposited/transferred MICR Number:
110002483 IFSC Code:
SBIN0011566 State Bank of India, Sector10, Dwarka Courts Complex Branch, New Delhi AWARD
1. The brief facts of the case are that on 08.10.2016 at about 11:25 am, MACT No. 2453/2016 Umesh Kumar Vs. Krishan Kumar Page No. 5 of 12 petitioner was going towards his house by riding on his motorcycle no. HR 13J6364 and when he reached at near H No. 1 in front of Naveen Place Colony, CRPF Camp, Main Jharoda Road, Najafgarh, New Delhi, all of sudden an Ambulance no. HR 68B 5826 hit the petitioner. Due to forceful impact the petitioner along with his motorcycle fell down on the road and he sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to RTRM Hospital for treatment where he was diagnosed by the doctors that the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries in his right leg and head and accordingly an MLC vide MLC No.5471/16 was prepared.
2. It is contended that said accident took place, due to use of offending vehicle by Krishan Kumar in negligent manner who has been impleaded as respondent no. 1. The owner of offending vehicle is Union of India , who is impleaded as respondent no. 2. By the present case, the petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/ (Rupees Twenty Five lacs Only) from respondents as compensation, alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.
3. The respondent No.1 and 2 have contested the present petition and filed reply/WS. It is stated that it was the petitioner who was driving his motor cycle in rash and negligent manner and hit the ambulance while overtaking from behind the truck. It is stated that R.1 was driving his vehicle in a very slow speed by observing the traffic rules and was not responsible in any manner for the alleged accident. It is stated that R.1 has not caused the alleged accident and has been falsely implicated in this case.
4. After completion of the pleadings, following issues were framed on 05.09.2022 :
1. Whether petitioner Umesh Kumar sustained grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident dt. 08.10.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle (Ambulace) no. HR68B5862 being driven by respondent no. 1 Krishan Kumar and owned by respondent No.2 Union of India ? ...OPP.
MACT No. 2453/2016 Umesh Kumar Vs. Krishan Kumar Page No. 6 of 12
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation , if so , what amount and from whom? ... OPP.
3. Relief.
5. In order to prove the present case, in PE, petitioner examined himself as PW1. The respondent No.1 appeared in the witness box as RW.1 in support of his case and also examined RW 2 Dr Anil P Lolusare.
6. I have heard ld. counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner as well as Ld Counsel for respondent. My issuewise findings are as under: ISSUE No.1: Whether petitioner Umesh Kumar sustained grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident dt. 08.10.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle (Ambulace) no. HR68B5862 being driven by respondent no. 1 Krishan Kumar and owned by respondent No.2 Union of India ? ...OPP.
7. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. To prove the present case, petitioner examined himself as PW1 and in his affidavit (Ex. PW 1/A), he has deposed that on 08.10.2016 at about 11:25 am, he was going towards his house by riding on his motorcycle no. HR13J6364 and when he reached at near H No. 1 in front of Naveen Place Colony, CRPF Camp, Main Jharoda Road, Najafgarh, New Delhi, all of sudden an Ambulance no. HR 68B 5826 came being driven by respondent No.1 in rash and negligent manner and hit him. Due to forceful impact by the Ambulance he along with his motorcycle fell down on the road and he suffered grievous injuries in his right leg and head. He has deposed that he was taken to RTRM Hospital for his treatment where MLC No.5471/16 was prepared.
8. PW 1 has been crossexamined on behalf of respondents. But the testimony of PW1 with respect to accident and rash & negligent driving of offending vehicle by R.1 could not be shaken/impeached. Even otherwise, the proof of negligence while disposing of a claim under MACT, is not that strict as it is for the offence under Section 279/337/338 of IPC. The MACT No. 2453/2016 Umesh Kumar Vs. Krishan Kumar Page No. 7 of 12 evidence which has come on the file can be considered and becomes more relevant. Though R.1 examined himself as RW1 in his defence. But in his cross examination he has categorically admitted that he has compromised with the petitioner in the criminal trial. The offence U/S 338 IPC is compoundable. If R.1 could not have been of negligence then how he could have compromised with the petitioner. So the testimony of R.1 is not supporting him in the present inquiry. So far as evidence of RW.2 is concerned he has admitted in this cross examination that he was not present at the spot of accident. So his testimony is not relevant for arriving at a conclusion that R.1 was not driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner. Being injured, petitioner is natural eyewitness of the case.
9. After considering the evidence on record, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against respondents by holding that petitioner suffered injuries in a vehicular accident due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle (Ambulance) bearing registration no.HR68B5826 by respondent no.1.
ISSUE No.2: ? Whether the petitioners in the above mentioned cases are entitled to compensation , if so , what amount and from whom?... OPP.
10. Being injured, petitioner is well within his rights to claim compensation. It is there on record, as per the deposition of PW 1 and the document proved on record, that petitioner has suffered grievous injury. He was admitted in RTRM Hospital, Jaffar Pur N Delhi vide MLC Ex PW1/G. Thereafter he remain admitted in Brahm Shakti Sanjivani Super Specialty Hospital Rohtak Road Bahadurgarh and remain admitted wef 08.10.2016 to 17.10.2012. It is deposed by him (PW1) that due to the said accident, he himself and his family members have suffered great mental pain, agony, love and affection, loss of income, loss of social activities. So considering all the facts compensation is awarded as under:
MACT No. 2453/2016 Umesh Kumar Vs. Krishan Kumar Page No. 8 of 12 MEDICAL BILLS
11. The petitioner has filed medical bills for a sum of Rs.96,628/. He remained admitted in hospital from the date of accident till 17.10.2022. He might have also spent some more money on medicines. So a lump sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/ is awarded to the petitioner towards medical bills. LOSS OF EARNING
12. The petitioner is claiming that he was doing private job and claiming that he was earning Rs.25,000/ p.m but no specific evidence has come on record to prove the fact of income of the petitioner. Even otherwise there is no concrete evidence which suggest to this tribunal that there was the fixed income of the petitioner. No document filed to show that petitioner was doing private job. There is no document qua his educational qualification being placed on record. At this stage Ld Counsel for the petitioner conceded to the fact that income of the petitioner/injured may be assessed as per Minimum Wages Act in Delhi. At the time of accident the the minimum wages of unskilled labour were Rs.15,492/ p.m. Keeping in view the nature of injuries ( ie grievous in his right leg and head ) received by him. It might have taken 45 months in healing of the injuries. The petitioner is also granted a sum of Rs.77,460/ (Rs. 15,492/ x 5) i.e. equal to five months minimum wages towards loss of earnings during the period of his treatment.
Attendant Charges , Conveyance and Special Diet.
13. There is no evidence except deposition of petitioner to verify that he spent any amount towards attendant. But seeing the nature of injuries being suffered by petitioner an amount of Rs.10,000/ is being awarded for attendant charges. Moreover, a sum of Rs. 10,000/ for special diets, Rs.10,000/ for conveyance.
MACT No. 2453/2016 Umesh Kumar Vs. Krishan Kumar Page No. 9 of 12 Pain and suffering
14. The next point that is to be discussed is pain and suffering and to calculate the same, the nature of injuries caused to the injured due to the accident, duration for which he got medical treatment and he was constrained to live in bed are few factors which must be taken into account. After the accident, petitioner was taken to R.T.R.M Hospital for his treatment. Tereafter he was taken to Brahm Shakti Sanjivani Super Speciality hospital, Bahadurgarh for his further treatment. It is very much apparent that when a person is leading a normal life suddenly meets with an accident which changes his complete life, the mental agony which he faces cannot be considered. The whole life changes and everything looks darker to that person which can be beyond out of imagination, such a scenario could shake even braver of bravest. The physical pain which petitioner had undergone after the accident cannot be explained as to a miserable person every body sympathizes though it never pacifies a victim. To compensate petitioner under this head, a sum of Rs.50,000/ is awarded to him.
Mental and physical shock:
15. The petitioner is 26 years of age at the time of accident , but due to this mishappening with him, all his dreams and expectations got completely shattered which cannot be compensated in monetary terms. However, to console him to an extent, a sum of Rs.25,000/ is awarded to petitioner under this head.
16. Thus making a total of Rs.2,82,460//, detail of which is given as under:
(i) Medical expenses Rs. 100,000/
(ii) Attendant charges Rs 10,000/
(ii) Special diets Rs. 10,000/
(iii) Conveyance Rs. 10,000/
(iv) Loss of earning during treatment Rs 77,460/
(v) Pain & suffering Rs. 50,000/ MACT No. 2453/2016 Umesh Kumar Vs. Krishan Kumar Page No. 10 of 12
(vi) Mental & physical shock Rs. 25,000/ Total Rs.2,82,460/ 17 This issue is therefore decided in favour of the petitioner and against respondent by holding that accident in question took place due to rash or negligent driving of vehicle bearing No. HR68B5826 being driven by respondent no.1 and petitioner suffered injuries in that accident and petitioner is entitled for compensation. 18 This issue is therefore decided in favour of the petitioner and against respondents by holding that petitioner is entitled for compensation from respondent No.1 and 2 . Since respondent No.1 was working under the control and supervision of Union of India/ Respondent No.2. Hence respondent No.2 is primarily liable to indemnify the Award in favour of the petitioner.
ISSUE No. 3 (RELIEF) 19 Petition in hands is allowed. Respondent No.2 directed to pay Rs.2,82,460/ jointly and severally alongwith interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of petition i.e. 15.12.2016 till the date of compliance to the petitioner as compensation in this case, within 30 days from today. Amount of interim compensation (if any) be deducted from this amount. The awarded amount shall remain as tax free in view of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in case in R/Special Civil Application No.4800 of 2021 titled The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Vs Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) decided on 05.04.2022.
20 Considering circumstances of petitioner, 20% of the amount of compensation be released to the petitioner by way of transferring the same in his saving bank account. The petitioner would allowed to withdraw the same through withdrawal slip only and by no other mode/modes i.e. ATM/ MACT No. 2453/2016 Umesh Kumar Vs. Krishan Kumar Page No. 11 of 12 debit card/credit card/letter/NEFT/RTGS etc. It is directed that 80% of amount of compensation be kept in the form of FDR for two years, commencing from one year to two years, in any nationalized bank ( ie petitioner's bank) in the name of petitioner for a period of one year with cumulative interest.
21 The salient features as pres cribed in the judgment in Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Ramesh Chandra Gupta FAO No. 842/2009 and MAC. App. No. 422/2009 decided on 07.11.2014 are to be applied:
(i) Original fixed deposit receipt be retained by the bank in safe custody.
However, the original passbook shall be given to the claimant along with the photocopy of the FDR.
(ii) The original fixed deposit receipt be handed over to the claimant at the end of the fixed deposit period.
(iii) Photo identity card shall be issued to the claimant and the withdrawal shall be permitted only after due verification by the Bank of the identity card of the claimant.
(iv) No cheque book/ATM/debit card/credit card shall be issued to the claimant without permission of the Court.
(v) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature encashment shall be allowed on the fixed deposit without permission of the Court.
22. Respondent No.2 are directed to deposit entire amount of compensation with this tribunal, within 30 days from today, with advance notice to petitioner.
23. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (JAGDISH KUMAR )
COURT ON 19.09.2023 PO, MACT02 SOUTH
WEST, DWARKA,
NEW DELHI
MACT No. 2453/2016 Umesh Kumar Vs. Krishan Kumar Page No. 12 of 12