Delhi District Court
Priya Ahuja @ Sunita vs Jamil @ Jameer on 6 December, 2018
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. HEMANI MALHOTRA, JUDGE
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL02,
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Petition No.76511/2016
FIR No. 271/12
PS Ganaur, Haryana
Priya Ahuja @ Sunita
W/o Sh. Vipin Ahuja
R/o 2/280, Subhash Nagar,
New Delhi
(Injured)
......Petitioner
Versus
1. Jamil @ Jameer
S/o Rojudin
R/o Village Hathwala,
Tehsil Samalkha,
Distt.Panipat,
Haryana
(Driver)
2. Mange Ram
S/o Giani Ram
R/o Village & PO Atta,
Tehsil Samalkha
Distt.Panipat,
Haryana
(Driver)
3. The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
At: near S.D. College,
G.T. Road,
Panipat,
Haryana
(Insurer)
.....Respondents
Date of Institution : 10.05.2013
Date of conclusion of arguments : 29.11.2018
Date of pronouncement of judgment/award : 06.12.2018 2 AWARD
1. This judgmentcumaward shall decide the claim of petitioner Priya Ahuja @ Sunita under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "M.V. Act") as amended up to date to claim compensation for the injuries sustained by her in a road vehicular accident that took place on 09.07.2012. An FIR No.271/12 u/ss 279/337/338 IPC was registered at Police Station Gannaur, Haryana and chargesheet was filed against respondent No.1/Jamil @ Jameer, driver of tractortrolley bearing registration No.HR60B 9864 (offending vehicle).
2. Certified copies of the criminal proceedings including FIR, site plan etc. were filed by the petitioners.
3. Brief facts of the vehicular accident as averred in the claim petition are that at about 11:00 am on 09.07.2012, petitioner Priya Ahuja @ Sunita was travelling from Sonepat to Panipat in a three wheeler scooter bearing registration No.HR 69A3874 along with copassenger Deepak Sachdeva. At about 12:30 pm, when they reached an overbridge at Gannaur G.T. Road, one tractortrolley bearing registration No.HR60B9864 being driven by respondent No.1 in a zigzag manner, rashly and negligently struck against the three wheeler, due to which, the petitioner, copassenger and the driver of the three wheeler sustained serious injuries. They were removed to Bhatia Hospital at Gannaur Haryana and subsequently to Shushruta Trauma Centre. Petitioner was thereafter referred to G.B. Pant Hospital.
4. Subsequently, it transpired that the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No.1/driver Jamil @ Jameer, owned by respondent No.2/Mange Ram and insured with respondent No.3/The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.
5. In the joint Written Statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, the involvement of tractor bearing registration No.HR60B9864 was denied. However, it was submitted that on the date of alleged accident, the tractor bearing registration No.HR60B9864 was insured with The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. vide policy No.353900311101000006922.
6. In the Written Statement filed by respondent No.3/Insurance Co., the fact that offending vehicle was insured with the New India Assurance Co.Ltd. was not denied.
37. From the pleadings of the parties, contentions raised and material on record, the following issues were framed by Learned Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 11.12.2013:
1. Whether the petitioner Smt.Priya Ahuja @ Sunita suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 09.07.2012 at about 12:00 noon involving trolley bearing No.HR60B9864 driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner/petitioners is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief
8. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have carefully perused the court record.
9. My findings on the issues are as under:
Issue No.1:
Whether the petitioner Smt.Priya Ahuja @ Sunita suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 09.07.2012 at about 12:00 noon involving trolley bearing No.HR60B9864 driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3? OPP
10. Since the present claim petition has been filed under the provisions of 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it was the bounden duty of the petitioners to prove that the respondent No.1 was rash and negligent in driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident.
11. In support of his claim, petitioner Priya Ahuja @ Sunita examined herself as PW1 and Dr.Naresh Chandra, Ortho Specialist, Guru Gobind Singh Hospital as PW2 (wrongly mentioned as PW1).
12. In her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.PW1/A), PW1 reiterated the details of accident as discussed in para 3 of this judgment. To further substantiate her claim, she placed on record certified copies of FIR No.271/12, site plan, seizure memo and chargesheet.
13. In her crossexamination, she reiterated that the accident had taken place when the tractortrolley had come from behind in a zigzag manner and had taken a sudden turn towards the right side. When she was confronted with her testimony before the Judicial Magistrate at Gannaur, Haryana qua criminal case No.385/12 registered as FIR No.271/12 u/ss 279/337/338 IPC, PS Gannuar 4 Distt.Sonepat, she admitted that in her testimony she neither remembered the registration number of the offending vehicle nor identified the accused.
14. Since PW1/Priya Ahuja admitted that she had failed to remember the registration number of the alleged offending vehicle in her testimony before the learned Judicial MM at Gannaur, Haryana, Sh.Deepak Sachdeva, copassenger of Priya Ahuja was examined as Court Witness CW1. He testified that at about 11:00 am on 09.07.2012, he along with Priya Ahuja had hired a TSR from Gannaur Bus Stand, Sonepat for Panipat and that when they had reached near a flyover at Gannaur, the offending tractor suddenly came from the agricultural fields adjacent to the road and struck against the TSR from left side. He further testified that he became unconscious and regained his consciousness at local hospital at Gannaur. He also stated that on the same day, he and the petitioner Priya Ahuja(PW1) were both referred to Sushruta Trauma Centre, Civil Lines, Delhi for further treatment.
15. Since CW1/Deepak Sachdeva in his testimony, also failed to give the registration number of the offending vehicle, it was very vehemently argued by learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the petitioner had miserably failed to prove the involvement of tractortrolley bearing registration No.HR60B9864 in the accident in question. Therefore, petitioner Priya Ahuja was not entitled to any compensation by the respondents.
16. The argument of learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 is without any merit and deserves to be rejected as interestingly, respondent No.1/Jamil @ Jameer, himself in para No.1 of his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.R1W1/A) stated that at the time of alleged incident, he was driving the alleged offending vehicle i.e. tractor bearing registration No.HR60B9864 and was going to bring paddy crops from Pipli Khera in the said tractor. In his crossexamination as well, he admitted that he was carrying saplings of rice at the time of accident.
17. Moreover, the bare perusal of the contents of the certified copies of FIR (Ex.PW1/D), chargesheet (Ex.PW1/G) and the site plan (Ex.PW1/E) prepared by the IO reflect that the offending tractortrolley bearing registration No.HR 60B9864 and TSR bearing registration No.HR69A3874 were photographed at the accident spot and removed to the road side by HC Sanjay. The Mechanical Inspection Report of the offending tractortrolley (Ex.PW1/F) further shows that 5 the trolley was damaged from the right side which corroborates the testimony of both PW1/Priya Ahuja and CW1/Deepak Sachdeva that the tractortrolley had taken a sudden right turn and had struck against the TSR in which both of them were travelling.
18. In view of the discussion held above, there is not an iota of doubt that it was the offending tractortrolley bearing registration No.HR60B9864 which was involved in the accident in question. Otherwise also, the nature of evidence required to prove involvement, rashness and negligence of the offending vehicle in a claim petition under the M.V. Act is not as strict.
19. In NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. PUSHPA RANA reported as 2009 ACJ, 287, it was 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. 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 benevolent legislation and not a penal one.
20. In a case titled as UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SMT. RINKI @ RINKU & ORS. in MAC APP. NO.200/2012 decided on 23.07.2012, Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.P. Mittal reiterated the aforesaid view and 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. Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors, (2009) 13 SC 530 wherein it was held as under:
"15. 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."
21. In view of the aforecited judgements and facts & circumstances of the present case, it is held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1/Jamil @ Jameer. Accordingly, issue No.1 is decided in favour 6 of the petitioner and against the respondents.
22. Finding on Issue No.2:
Whether the petitioner/petitioners is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
23. Since issue No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner, she is entitled for compensation.
24. In RAJ KUMAR VS. AJAY KUMAR & ANOTHER (2011) 1 SCC 343, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down general principles for computation of compensation in injury cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced as under:
5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act", for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. 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 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.
6. 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.
Nonpecuniary damages (general damages)
(iv) Damages to 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).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii), (a) and (iv). 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.
PECUNIARY DAMAGES (Special Damages) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization and medicines 7
25. Petitioner Priya Ahuja/PW1, to prove her injuries, placed on record her MLC Ex.PW1/B. As per Ex.PW1/B, she sustained "Fracture in left frontal skull bone with compound fracture of proximal end of left tibia". She also placed on record medical bills along with bill summary amounting to Rs.42,227/. Accordingly, petitioner is awarded a compensation of Rs.42,227/ (Rupees Forty Two Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Seven) under this head. Expenses relating to Conveyance, Food(Special Diet) and Attendant charges
26. No specific amount under this head was claimed by the petitioner Priya Ahuja/PW1 in her claim petition. However, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, she is awarded a notional amount of Rs.20,000/ (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each for conveyance, Special Diet and attendant charges under this head.
Loss of earning during the period of treatment
27. It was claimed by the petitioner that immediately after the accident, she was removed to Ch.Ram Kishan Bhatia Nursing Home at Gannaur Haryana and subsequently to Sushruta Trauma Centre and from there, she was referred to G.B. Pant Hospital where she remained admitted w.e.f. 09.07.2012 to 23.07.2012. After discharge from G.B. Pant Hospital, she was admitted to Lok Nayak Hospital for further treatment where she remained admitted from 24.07.2012 to 29.08.2012.
28. In view of the medical treatment record and injuries sustained by the petitioner Priya Ahuja, the period of loss of earning during the period of her treatment and recovery is reckoned as 05 months.
29. It was claimed by PW1/Priya Ahuja that at the time of accident, she was running a beauty shopcumtraining centre in the name & style of M/s Ambika Beauty Parlour & Training Centre and earning Rs.15,000/ per month. To substantiate her claim, she placed on record copy of rent agreement (Ex.PW1/N1) qua the premises in which she was allegedly running beauty parlour. She also placed on record copy of a Certificate issued by "The School of Beauty Culture and Parlour" and some photographs of the said parlour. However, she did not place on record any proof qua her monthly income of Rs.15,000/. Be that as it may, to prove her educational qualification, she placed on record copy of Graduation Degree issued by Kurukshetra University in Bachelor of Arts as Ex.PW1/J. 8 Accordingly, petitioner is considered as a Graduate and her income is assessed as Rs.9,282/ per month as per Minimum Wage Rate of a Graduate prevailing in Delhi at the time of accident. Thus, loss of income of petitioner during the period of treatment would be Rs.9,282 x 05 = Rs.46,410/. Hence, petitioner Priya Ahuja is held entitled to a compensation of Rs.46,410/ (Rupees Forty Six Thousand Four Hundred and Ten) under this head. Loss of future earning on account of permanent disability
30. Dr.Naresh Chandra, Ortho Specialist, Guru Gobind Singh Hospital, who was examined as PW2 (wrongly mentioned as PW1) had examined the petitioner as sole member of the Medical Board constituted by Medical Superintendent. He issued disability certificate (Ex.PW1/O) in respect of petitioner. As per Permanent Disability Certificate (Ex.PW1/O), petitioner was found to be suffering from permanent physical disability of 59% in relation to her right lower limb. Considering the vocation of the petitioner which requires standing for long hours, functional disability of petitioner w.r.t. her whole body is assessed as 30%.
31. Accordingly, loss of future earning on account of permanent physical disability of the petitioner amounts to Rs.2,784.60 per month (Rs.9,282 x 30/100). Hence, annual loss of future earning of the petitioner is assessed as Rs.33,415.20 (Rs.2,784.60 x 12) which is ascertained as multiplicand. Age of the petitioner
32. Petitioner Priya Ahuja/PW1 placed on record her Voter I/Card, as per which, her age was 33 years as on 01.01.2005. Since, the accident took place on 09.07.2012, hence she was aged 40 years at the time of the accident.
33. Applying the criteria of multiplier laid down in SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS.
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER, (2009) 6 SUPREME COURT CASES 121, the multiplier applicable in this case would be 15 (fifteen).
34. Therefore, the total loss of future earning of the petitioner on account of permanent physical disability would be Rs.5,01,228/ {Rs.33,415.20 (multiplicand) X 15 (Multiplier)} (Rupees Five Lakhs One Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Eight).
Future Medical Expenses
35. Since no claim or evidence was led by the petitioner regarding her future 9 treatment, same is assessed as NIL.
NONPECUNIARY DAMAGES (GENERAL DAMAGES) Pain, Sufferings & Trauma
36. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, I am of the opinion that an amount of Rs.75,000/ (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand) would be just and fair compensation under this head. Loss of Amenities
37. A sum of Rs.50,000/ (Rupees Fifty Thousand) is further awarded under this head.
38. The total compensation is computed as under:
SN Heads Amount
1. Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization and medicines 42,227
2. Conveyance 20,000
3. Food (Special Diet) 20,000
3. Attendant Charges 20,000
4. Loss of earning during the period of treatment 46,410
5. Loss of future earning on account of permanent disability 5,01,228
6. Future Medical Expenses Nil
7. Pain, Suffering & Trauma 75,000
8. Loss of Amenities 50,000
Total 7,74,865
Accordingly, total compensation is assessed as Rs.7,74,865/ (rounded off to Rs.7,75,000/) (Rupees Seven Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand). LIABILITY
39. It was claimed by respondent No.3/The New India Assurance Company Ltd. that the insurance company was not liable to pay any amount of compensation to the petitioner as driver of the offending vehicle (tractortrolley) was not holding an effective and valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle which was commercial in nature. To substantiate its claim, insurance company had examined R3W1/N.K. Saxena, Assistant/The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. who testified that as per the report, DL was issued to respondent No.1 for non commercial vehicles, whereas, respondent No.1 was driving a commercial vehicle. No witness was, however, examined by the insurance company to prove 10 that respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle was driving a commercial vehicle. In his crossexamination, respondent No.1, driver of the offending vehicle categorically stated that at the time of accident, he was carrying paddy crops from the fields. Even CW1/Deepak Sachdeva had also testified that the tractorcumtrolley/offending vehicle was coming from the agriculture fields when it had struck against the TSR. Otherwise also, respondent No.1 was holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive tractor, car/jeep, scooter/motorcycle which are Light Motor Vehicles. In Sant Lal Vs. Rajesh and Anr., 2018 ACJ 976 (SC) , it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that "driver having licence to drive light motor vehicle can drive such a transport vehicle of LMV class and there is no necessity to obtain separate endorsement, since tractor attached with the trolley was transport vehicle of the category of Light Motor Vehicle. Hence, there was no breach of the conditions of the policy."
40. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid judgment and the fact that respondent No.1 was holding an effective driving licence to drive light motor vehicles of the category i.e. tractor, car/jeep, scooter/motorcycle, it is held that all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. However, since the offending vehicle was duly insured to cover the third party risk, respondent No.3/Insurance company is under the statutory liability to pay the compensation to the petitioner. RELIEF
41. In view of above findings on Issue Nos.1 & 2, I award an amount of Rs.7,75,000/ (Rupees Seven Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand) as compensation to petitioner Priya Ahuja. Petitioner is also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition i.e. 10.05.2013 till its realisation. Amount of Interim Award, if paid any, be deducted from the compensation amount.
42. Consequently, interest amount be paid to the petitioner along with award amount as per the terms and conditions mentioned in succeeding paragraphs. MODE OF PAYMENT AND DISBURSEMENT
43. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company shall deposit the award amount within 30 days from the date of Award in the State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Branch, Delhi in the name of the petitioner under intimation to the petitioner and the 11 Tribunal. In default of payment within the prescribed period, Respondent No.3/Insurance Company shall be liable to pay a penal interest @ 12% p.a. for the period of delay till its realisation.
44. While making the deposit, Insurance Company shall mention the particulars of this case, name of the Tribunal and the date of decision on the back side of the cheque. Insurance Company shall also file copy of the award attested by its responsible officer in the bank at the time of deposit. Insurance Company is further directed to place on record proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice to the petitioner in respect of deposit of the award amount and complete details in respect of calculation of interest etc. in the Tribunal within 30 days with effect from today.
45. Out of total award amount of Rs.7,75,000/, a sum of Rs.2,75,000/ (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand), be released to the petitioner immediately in her savings bank accounts in a nationalised bank.
46. In order to avoid the compensation money being frittered away, balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/ (Rupees Five Lakhs) be kept in 05 annual FDRs of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rupees One Lakh) each with monthly interest viz. 1st FDR for one year; 2nd FDR for two years and so on in the name of petitioner in accordance with the order dt. 01.05.2018 passed by Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.R. Midha in RAJESH TYAGI & ORS. VS. JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. IN FAO NO.842/2003.
47. The following conditions are imposed with respect to the fixed deposits:
(a) Original FDRs be retained by the bank in its safe custody. However, a statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity of FDR and maturity amount of the FDRs be given to the claimant(s).
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the victim i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposits shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).12
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s).
(d)The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s).
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned nationalised bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall freeze the debit card(s) of the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect, that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement along with his PAN card before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
48. Copy of the Award be given to the parties free of costs.
49. Copy of this Award be also sent to concerned learned M.M. and DLSA.
50. Nazir is directed to prepare a separate file for compliance and be put up on 18.01.2019.
51. Form IVB in accordance with order dt. 15.12.2017 in RAJESH TYAGI (SUPRA) is annexed with the award in compliance of order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by HEMANI HEMANI MALHOTRA
Announced in the open Court MALHOTRA Date: 2018.12.06
16:02:57 +0530
on 6th December, 2018
(Hemani Malhotra)
Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal02,
West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
13
FORM IV B
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident 09.07.2012
2. Name of the injured Priya Ahuja
3. Age of the injured 40 years
4. Occupation of the injured Graduate
5. Income of the injured Rs.9,282/ p.m.
6. Nature of Injury Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by Ch.Ram Kishan Bhatia Nursing Home the injured G.B. Pant Hospital, Lok Nayak Hosp.
8. Period of hospitalization 09.07.2012 to 23.07.2012;
24.07.2012 to 29.08.2012
9. Whether any permanent disability If yes, give details 59% in relation to right lower limb
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment 42,227 (ii) Expenditure on conveyance 20,000 (iii) Expenditure on special diet 20,000 (iv) Cost of nursing attendant 20,000 (v) Loss of earning capacity (vi) Loss of income 46,410
(vii) Any other loss which may require any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life 12 NonPecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering 75,000
(iii) Loss of amenities of life
(iv) Disfiguration 14
(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 nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life span on account 50,000 of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income (income x % Earning Capacity X 5,01,228 Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.7,74,865/ (rounded off to Rs.7,75,000/)
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the date of award Rs.3,88,662/
17. Total amount including interest Rs.11,63,662/
18. Award amount released Rs.2,75,000/
19. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.5,00,000/
20. Mode of disbursement of the award amount to the claimant(s). Through Bank (Clause 29)
21. Next date for compliance of the award (Clause 31) 18.01.2019 Digitally signed by HEMANI HEMANI MALHOTRA MALHOTRA Date: 2018.12.06 16:03:09 +0530 (Hemani Malhotra) Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi