Delhi District Court
Shailly vs Afroz Khan And Ors on 13 November, 2024
IN THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED BY SH. SHIVAJI ANAND,
==============================================
UID No./CNR No. DLNW01-007904-2021 & DLNW01-006323-2020 MACT CASE No. 330/21 & 202/20 FIR No. 622/20, PS Mangolpuri In the matter of :
1. Shelly W/o Pankaj R/o A-3/A-1, Khasra No.6/17, Rajeev Nagar Begumpur, Delhi.
....Petitioner Vs.
1. Afroz Khan, S/o Sher Khan, R/o Goan Meerpur Tehsil Loni District, Ghaziabad, UP.
....Driver/R1
2. M/s Delhi MSW Solutions Ltd Authorized person namely Ajay Kumar Puri, S/o Late Sohan Lal Puri, R/o H.No.11, Pocket E-3, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi.
....Owner/R2
3. Go Digit General Insurance Co. Ltd.
....Insurer/R3
Date of institution of the DAR : 09.10.2021
Date of institution of the petition : 23.09.2020
Date of final Arguments : 25.10.2024
Date of Decision : 13.11.2024
Appearance (s) : Ms. Babita Tyagi, Ld. Counsel for petitioner.
Sh. Ankit Kalra, Ld. Counsel for R1 and R2. Sh. Shailendra Rai, Ld. Counsel for R3.
MACT Case No. 330-21 (FIR No.622-20) Shailly Vs. Afrox Khan & Ors.
Page no. 1 of 19 Digitally signed by SHIVAJI SHIVAJI ANAND ANAND Date:
2024.11.13 JUDGMENT/AWARD
1. Vide this judgment/award, I shall dispose off the Detailed Accident Report (in short, the DAR) filed by IO ASI Daulat Singh in FIR No.622/20, PS Mangolpuri, Delhi pertaining to injuries sustained by Shailly (in short, the injured) in road accident occurred on 06.07.2020.
FACTUAL POSITION AND PLEADINGS
2. The brief facts relevant for disposal of the present DAR are that on 06.07.2020, the petitioner was going her parental home with her husband Pankaj on his vehicle bearing registration no.DL- 8SBD-4756 (in short, "the motorcycle"). At about 5:15 PM, when the petitioner reached at Mangolpuri Flyover and was going towards Peeragarhi, in the meantime, a vehicle i.e. Garbage Dumper Make of Tata Truck Front Yellow and body green bearing registration no.DL-1GB-6899 (in short, "the offending vehicle") which was on MCD Duty came from back side and hit abovesaid motorcycle. As a result, the motorcycle fell down on the road and the petitioner sustained injuries.
3. However, the petitioner was taken to Sehgal Neo Hospital, Delhi where her MLC bearing registration no.B-1844/20 was prepared by the doctors. Thereafter, she was referred to Medanta Hospital for her further treatment. An FIR No. 622/20, PS Mangolpuri, Delhi was registered U/s 279/337/338 IPC in this regard. SHIVAJI by SHIVAJI Digitally signed ANAND ANAND Date: 2024.11.13 16:53:40 +0530 MACT Case No. 330-21 (FIR No.622-20) Shailly Vs. Afrox Khan & Ors.
Page no. 2 of 19
4. Respondent no.1 has filed his WS wherein he stated that the petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the alleged accident took place due to the sole negligence of the petitioner as he was negligent and because of his sole negligence the accident in question took place, hence, no liability can be fasted on the answering respondent. It is further submitted that no loss of any nature was caused to the petitioner hence they are not entitled for any compensation from the answering respondent, the claim of the petitioner is not maintainable and liable to be rejected. It is further submitted that the answering respondent no.1 was working with the respondent no.2 as a driver of the aforesaid vehicle. It is further submitted that the respondent no.1 was possessing valid and effective driving license to drive the aforesaid offending vehicle. It is further submitted that the offending vehicle was duly insured with insurance company, and respondent no.3 is liable to pay the compensation.
5. Respondent no.2 has filed his WS wherein he stated that offending vehicle was insured with M/s Go Digit General Insurance Company Ltd. Vide policy bearing no.D010279626/16112019 w.e.f. 29.11.2019 to 28.11.2020 in favour of answering respondent no.2. It is further submitted that the offending vehicle was being used with a valid and effective insurance policy issued by respondent no.3 covering the date of alleged accident i.e. 06.07.2020 covering all risks and losses if any caused to the petitioner by the offending vehicle, thus, the answering respondent is not liable to be pay any compensation whatsoever is claimed by the petitioners.
MACT Case No. 330-21 (FIR No.622-20) Shailly Vs. Afrox Khan & Ors.
Page no. 3 of 19
Digitally signed
by SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
ANAND Date:
2024.11.13
6. Legal offer was filed on behalf of insurance company.
ISSUES:
7. Following issues were framed by this Tribunal on 29.04.2022:
1. Whether petitioner Shailly W/o Sh. Pankaj, suffered injuries in road traffic accident on 06.07.2020 at 5:24 PM, at Mangolpuri, Flyover Towards Peeragarhi Side, due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle i.e. MCD's Garbage Collecting Truck bearing no.DL-1GB-6899 which was being driven by driver Sh. Afroz Khan, S/o Sh. Sher Khan on the said date, time and place?OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner/injured is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
8. Thereafter, matter was listed for recording of evidence. In order to prove her case, petitioner Shelly examined herself as PW-1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A bearing her signatures at point A and B and relied upon the following documents which are as follows:
1. Discharge summary is Ex.PW-1/1.
2. Treatment papers are Ex.PW-1/2 (colly).
3. Bills are Ex.PW-1/3 (colly).
4. DAR are Ex.PW-1/4 (colly).
5. ID card of the petitioner is Ex.PW-1/5.
6. Disability certificate is Ex.PW-1/6.
9. In her cross examination done by Ld. Counsel for R3, she deposed that at the time of accident her husband was driving the MACT Case No. 330-21 (FIR No.622-20) Shailly Vs. Afrox Khan & Ors.
Page no. 4 of 19
Digitally signed
by SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
ANAND Date:
2024.11.13
16:53:57 +0530
motorcycle bearing no. DL-8SBD-4756 alongwith her and her sister as pillion rider. She further deposed that at the time of accident they were wearing the helmets. The accident occurred before the Peeragarhi Flyover. She denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to negligence of her husband due to triple riding of the motorcycle. She is 12th passed. She deposed that the sitting capacity of motorcycle is of two persons. She denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of her husband. She further deposed that there were so many traffic at the time of accident. She had noticed the registration number of the vehicle after the accident. She herself had came out from the rear portion of the truck. The alleged truck was bearing no. DL-1GB-6899. She had not filed any documentary proof regarding her income. She deposed that she had not filed any medical bill on the record. She further deposed that she had not filed any documentary proof regarding conveyance, special diet and attendant. She further deposed that she had not filed future treatment record. She denied the suggestion that she was am deposing falsely.
10. Dr. Manoj Kumar, Consultant Sehgal Hospital, Meera Bagh, Paschim Vihar, Delhi has been examined as PW-2 and deposed that he had brought the treatment record of Sehgal Hospital, Meera Bagh, Paschim Vihar, Delhi with regard to the petitioner Shelly which is Ex.PW-2/1 (colly) (OSR).
11. In his cross examination done by Ld. Counsel for R3, he deposed that he was treating doctor. He deposed that she was MACT Case No. 330-21 (FIR No.622-20) Shailly Vs. Afrox Khan & Ors.
Page no. 5 of 19
Digitally signed
by SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
Date:
ANAND 2024.11.13
16:54:03
admitted in his hospital on 06.07.2020 and discharged on 15.07.2020. He further deposed that the entire treatment was under
Delhi Arogya Kosh (DAK). The entire treatment expenses bear the Delhi Government. He had operated the petitioner on 07.07.2020 and 11.07.2020. The entire dead tissues were removed from the crush injury from the right thigh of the patient. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
12. Dr. Nitin Kumar, Senior Assistant, Department of Orthopedics, BSA Hospital, Sector-6, Rohini, Delhi has been examined as PW-3 and had brought the record of the disability certificate bearing no.1247 dated 02.03.2022 already Ex.PW-1/6 issued from BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi. The disability certificate was prepared by Dr. Shahswat Aggarwal, Dr. Apoorv Dua and Dr. Namita Deka, Dr. BSA Hospital. The said disability certificate was issued from BSA Hospital and sent to the court.
13. In his cross examination done by Ld. Counsel for R1 and R2, he deposed that he had not examined the patient Ms. Shailly at any point of time. He further deposed that he was not present when the patient was examined. He further deposed that there was no shortening of any leg after the accident in question. He cannot comment about the local examination done by the Doctor who had prepared the MLC which is Ex.PW-3/RX1. He denied the suggestion that the patient was not examined as per the described procedure given by the Government of NCT of Delhi. He denied the suggestion that the disability certificate issued at the instance of MACT Case No. 330-21 (FIR No.622-20) Shailly Vs. Afrox Khan & Ors.
Page no. 6 of 19 Digitally signed by SHIVAJI SHIVAJI ANAND ANAND Date:
2024.11.13 petitioner. He deposed that when patient was examined in his hospital he was not posted at that point of time and he had been appointed in the said hospital in the month of January 2023. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. Ld. Counsel for R3 had adopted the cross examination done by Ld. Counsel for R1 and R2.
14. Sh. Ranjit Kumar Sah, Record Keeper, Medanta Hospital, Gurugram, Haryana has been examined as PW-4 and he was summoned witness in the present case. He had brought the summoned record i.e. attested copy of discharge summary and bills are Ex.PW-4/1 (colly).
15. In his cross examination done by Ld. Counsel for R3, he deposed that he had brought the original medical bills issued to the petitioner at the time of discharge. He further deposed that he had brought the attested copy of bills. He further deposed that his hospital was already supplied the original discharge summary to the petitioner at the time of discharge. He had not brought the authorization letter today to lead the evidence on behalf of Medanta Hospital. HOD of the hospital was authorized him to lead the evidence. All the medical bills are computerized documents. He deposed that he had brought any u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
16. In his cross examination done by ld. Counsel for R2, he deposed that he had no personal knowledge of the record which he MACT Case No. 330-21 (FIR No.622-20) Shailly Vs. Afrox Khan & Ors.
Page no. 7 of 19 Digitally signed by SHIVAJI SHIVAJI ANAND ANAND Date:
2024.11.13 had brought today. He denied the suggestion that documents brought by her are forged and fabricated. He cannot comment about the fact that the bills brought by her are duplicate or not as mentioned at point A of Ex.PW-4/1 (colly). He deposed that he entire original medical bills were already given to the patient at the time of discharge from the hospital. The hospital had given a discount of Rs.16,15,190.09/- to patient at the time of discharge. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
17. Dr. Ritu Setiya, Incharge of Medical Record Department, Medanta Hospital, Gurgaon, Sector-38, Haryana has been examined as PW-5 and she was summoned witness. She had brought the authority letter from the Department by which she had been deputed to depose on behalf of hospital which is Ex.PW5/1. She had brought the summoned record i.e. estimate of expenditure related to Unilateral TKR (Total Knee Replacement) which is Ex.PW5/2. Replacement of knee depends on the success of operation. The first replacement may work for whole of life if the operation is successful, otherwise, there may be various replacements. Thereafter, petitioners evidence was closed and matter was listed for recording of respondents evidence.
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE:
18. No evidence has been led by respondents. Hence respondent evidence was closed and matter was listed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS & FINDINGS:
MACT Case No. 330-21 (FIR No.622-20) Shailly Vs. Afrox Khan & Ors.
Page no. 8 of 19
Digitally signed
by SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
Date:
ANAND 2024.11.13
16:54:21
19. I have heard ld. Counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the testimony of the witnesses, the pleadings and the documents. My issue wise findings in the case are as under :-
ISSUE NO.1
1. Whether petitioner Shailly W/o Sh. Pankaj, suffered injuries in road traffic accident on 06.07.2020 at 5:24 PM, at Mangolpuri, Flyover Towards Peeragarhi Side, due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle i.e. MCD's Garbage Collecting Truck bearing no.DL-1GB-6899 which was being driven by driver Sh. Afroz Khan, S/o Sh. Sher Khan on the said date, time and place?OPP.
20. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also MACT Case No. 330-21 (FIR No.622-20) Shailly Vs. Afrox Khan & Ors.
Page no. 9 of 19 Digitally signed by SHIVAJI SHIVAJI ANAND Date:
ANAND 2024.11.13 recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
21. As already discussed above, the petitioner examined herself as PW-1 in order to prove the facts regarding the occurrence of accident. None of the respondents could bring any material on record which was inconsistent with the version of the petitioner. There is nothing on record which suggests that oral testimony of PW-1 could not be believed. As such, this Tribunal finds it appropriate to hold that the oral testimony of PW-1 is reliable and trustworthy.
22. The very fact that R-1 has already been chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279/337/338 IPC in the above criminal case/FIR in itself is a strong circumstance to support the above oral testimony of PW1 and the case of petitioner on this issue. The copies of FIR, Chargesheet and MLC, also corroborate the oral testimony of PW1.
23. Besides the above, R-1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the depositions being made by PW1 regarding the above accident and its manner etc., but he has not done so. Therefore, an adverse inference on this aspect is also required to be drawn against the respondents in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
24. Legal offer was filed on behalf of insurance company, thus, MACT Case No. 330-21 (FIR No.622-20) Shailly Vs. Afrox Khan & Ors.
Page no. 10 of 19 Digitally signed by SHIVAJI SHIVAJI ANAND ANAND Date:
2024.11.13 16:54:37 it shows that the insurance company admits its liability and that proves that the accident had occurred due to rash and neglignet driving of R1/driver of the offending vehicle.
25. In view of the above discussion, this tribunal is of considered opinion that R-1 is guilty of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle at the relevant time leading to the accident in which petitioner sustained grievous injuries.
26. The medical treatment documents placed on record by the petitioner shows that he suffered grievous injuries on account of neglect and default of R-1 while driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. This issue thus stands decided against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner.ISSUE NO. 2
"'Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?"
27. As the issue no.1 has been proved in affirmative and in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner has become entitled to be compensated for the injuries suffered in the above accident, but the computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided.
28. In terms of provisions contained in Section 168 of the MV Act the compensation which is to be awarded by this tribunal is required to be 'just'. In the injury cases a claimant is entitled to two different kinds of compensations i.e. pecuniary as well as non-
MACT Case No. 330-21 (FIR No.622-20) Shailly Vs. Afrox Khan & Ors.
Page no. 11 of 19 Digitally signed by SHIVAJI SHIVAJI ANAND ANAND Date:
2024.11.13 pecuniary damages. The pecuniary damages or special damages are those damages which are awarded and designed to make good the losses which are capable of being calculated in terms of money and the object of awarding these damages is to indemnify the claimant for the expenses which she had already incurred or is likely to incur in respect of the injuries suffered by her in the accident. The non- pecuniary or general damages are those damages which are incapable of being assessed which includes the compensation for the mental or physical shock, pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life and disfiguration etc. The above categories falling under both the heads of compensation are not exhaustive in nature but only illustrative. It is also necessary to state here that no amount of money or compensation can put the injured/claimant exactly in the same position or place where she was before the accident and an effort is to be made only to reasonably compensate her or to put her almost in the same place or position where she could have been if the alleged accident had not taken place and this compensation is to be assessed in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. Reference in this regard can be made on some of important judgments on the subject like the judgment in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343.
29. As per the DAR, the injured was travelling in motorcycle with her husband and sister. There were total 3 people in that motorcycle. During the cross examination of PW-1, she admitted that her husband was driving the motorcycle alongwit her and her sister. In view of this clear admission by PW-1, the contributory MACT Case No. 330-21 (FIR No.622-20) Shailly Vs. Afrox Khan & Ors.
Page no. 12 of 19 Digitally signed SHIVAJI by SHIVAJI ANAND negligence on part of injured is attributed to the extent of 20 %.
30. In light of the above legal propositions, the amount of compensation which could be considered to be 'just' in the opinion of this tribunal shall be as under:-
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses
31. The petitioner has placed on judicial file his medical bills as Ex.PW-1/3 (colly) and Ex.PW-4/1 (colly). As per the said documents, petitioner has incurred expenses to the tune of Rs.5,06,797/-. Thus, the petitioner is held entitled to an amount of Rs.5,06,797/- under this head.
(ii) Pain and Suffering
32. As per disability certificate of petitioner, she has suffered 78% disability in relation to Right Lower Limb. The said claim is duly corroborated by the medical records. The petitioner was hospitalized for a long term. It is not possible to quantify the compensation admissible to injured for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which he actually suffered because of the above injuries, but as stated above, an effort has to be made to compensate her for the same in a just and reasonable manner. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the injuries suffered by injured and duration of the treatment taken by her etc., an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- is being awarded to her towards pain and sufferings during the said period of her treatment and immobility. Thus, she is awarded a total amount of Rs.3,00,000/- under this head.
MACT Case No. 330-21 (FIR No.622-20) Shailly Vs. Afrox Khan & Ors.
Page no. 13 of 19
Digitally signed
by SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
Date:
ANAND 2024.11.13
16:54:54
(iii) Loss of Actual Earnings
33. The petitioner has deposed that at the relevant time, she was giving tuition and was earning Rs.18,000/- per month. She could not attend her work from the date of accident till date. She could not be able to do any work in near future due to disability. In order to support her abovesaid claim as to her employment and monthly income, petitioner has not filed any documents on record. In the above facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate that the monthly income of petitioner be assessed as per the minimum wages payable to unskilled person in Delhi at the relevant time. As per relevant notification, the minimum wages admissible to unskilled person as on 06.07.2020 in the Delhi were Rs.15,310/- per month. Keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner as well as her prolonged medical treatment, it could be safely assumed that the petitioner would not have been able to resume her work/ vocation till date i.e. 4 years. As such, the petitioner is held entitled to a sum of Rs.7,34,880/- (Rs.15,310/- x 48). The said sum is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
(iv) Loss of future earnings due to disability
34. Petitioner has become permanently disabled after the accident and cannot do the work in near future. However, as observed earlier, the petitioner has not been able to prove the nature of her vocation/ employment and therefore, the monthly income of the petitioner has been assumed as per minimum wages admissible to unskilled person. Admittedly, petitioner has suffered 78% permanent physical impairment. The above disability would definitely lower/ reduce the MACT Case No. 330-21 (FIR No.622-20) Shailly Vs. Afrox Khan & Ors.
Page no. 14 of 19
SHIVAJI Digitally signed by
SHIVAJI ANAND
employability of any unskilled person and thereby hamper her earning capacity. In the absence of any material to the contrary, it would be appropriate to hold that the functional disability of petitioner be assessed at 100%. This Tribunal has already assumed the monthly income of petitioner to be Rs.15,310/- at the relevant time. As far as the age of petitioner at the time of accident is concerned, the photocopies of petitioner's Aadhar Card as per which document, the date of birth of petitioner is 22.10.1993. By calculation, the age of petitioner as on the date of accident i.e. 06.07.2020 was 26 years 8 months 15 days. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.,(2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment dated 31.10.2017 given in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, the multiplier of '17' is held applicable for calculating the loss of future earnings of petitioner arising out of her above disability. The petitioner is also entitled to future prospects as per the observations made by a Three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Erudhaya Priya Vs. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., MANU/SC/0545/2020 [please see para 7 (b)]. Thus, the loss of future earnings of petitioner due to her above injury and permanent disability comes to is calculated as follows:
S. Head Amount Remarks
No. (Rs.)
1 Monthly Income of injured as 12,248 12,248/- (after
MACT Case No. 330-21 (FIR No.622-20)
Shailly Vs. Afrox Khan & Ors.
Page no. 15 of 19
Digitally
signed by
SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
ANAND Date:
2024.11.13
16:55:05
per minimum wages of deduction of 20 %
unskilled person (A) due to contributory
negligence from the
total Rs.15,310/-)
2 Monthly loss of earning (B) 12,248 100% of (A) (as
petitioner sustained
grievous injuries and
suffered 78 %
disability, thus the
functional disability
of petitioner be
assessed at 100%)
3 Annual Loss of earning (C) 1,46,976 (B) x 12 = (C)
4 Multiplier @ 17
5 Total Loss of earnings (D) 24,98,592 (C) x 17(multiplier)
= (D)
6 Add: Future prospects @ 40% 9,99,436.8 40% of (D) = (E)
(E)
Rounded Off to: 34,98,029
(v) Conveyance, Attendant Charges and Special Diet
35. Petitioner has claimed the compensation under this Head.
She claimed separate compensation under these heads. But no documents has been filed by the petitioner regarding the attendant charges, conveyance and special diet. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the extent of permanent physical disability and the prolonged period of her medical treatment, the petitioner is granted a sum of Rs.50,000/- each under Attendant Charges, Conveyance and Special diet.
(vi)LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE MACT Case No. 330-21 (FIR No.622-20) Shailly Vs. Afrox Khan & Ors.
Page no. 16 of 19
Digitally signed
by SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
ANAND Date:
36. As already mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries and disability in relation to Right Limb. Thus, the petitioner would not be able to enjoy general amenities of life after the accident in question, during rest of her life and her quality of life has been definitely affected. Thus, award amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life is granted to the petitioner.
(vii) Cost of expenditure related to Unilateral TKR (Total Knee Replacement)
37. Petitioner has examined one witness namely Dr. Ritu Setiya PW-5 to show the cost of expenditure related to Unilateral TKR and she brought the document Ex.PW5/2. As per the Ex.PW5/2, award amount of Rs.4,75,000/- towards Cost of expenditure related to Unilateral TKR (Total Knee Replacement) is granted to petitioner.
Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under : -
S. No. Head Amount
1 Medical Expenses 5,06,797
2 Pain and Suffering 3,00,000
3 Loss of actual earning 7,34,880
4 Loss of future earning due to disability 34,98,029
5 Conveyance and special diet 1,00,000
6 Attendant Charges 50,000
7 Loss of General Amenities and enjoyment of
1,00,000
life
MACT Case No. 330-21 (FIR No.622-20)
Shailly Vs. Afrox Khan & Ors.
Page no. 17 of 19
Digitally
signed by
SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
ANAND Date:
2024.11.13
16:55:15
8 Cost of expenditure related to Unilateral TKR
4,75,000
(Total Knee Replacement)
Total 57,64,706
Issue No.3/Relief
38. The petitioner is thus entitled to a sum of Rs.57,64,706/-
(Rupees Fifty Seven Lacs Sixty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Six only) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 23.09.2020 till actual payment. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of this inquiry, shall be liable to be excluded from the above amount and calculations of compensation.
Liability
39. Respondent no.3/Insurance Co. ltd. is hereby directed to deposit the Award amount in SBI, Rohini Courts Branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a for the period of delay. The parties are directed to download the digital copy of judgment online.
APPORTIONMENT
40. It is noted that statement of claimant/ petitioner in terms of Clause 26 MCTAP was not recorded. Therefore, the apportionment is withheld.
41. Form V and IVB in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A. Digitally signed by SHIVAJI SHIVAJI ANAND Date:
ANAND 2024.11.13
16:55:20
+0530
MACT Case No. 330-21 (FIR No.622-20)
Shailly Vs. Afrox Khan & Ors.
Page no. 18 of 19
42. A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 13.12.2024.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT Digitally signed by SHIVAJI ON 13 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024.
th SHIVAJI ANAND
ANAND 2024.11.13
Date:
16:55:25 +0530
(SH. SHIVAJI ANAND)
DJ-1+MACT, NORTH WEST,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MACT Case No. 330-21 (FIR No.622-20)
Shailly Vs. Afrox Khan & Ors.
Page no. 19 of 19