Delhi District Court
Gopal vs Rambhool Etc on 19 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH.SHAILENDER MALIK, PRESIDING OFFICER:
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-02, SHAHDARA,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
MACT No.403/2019
CNR- DLSH01-007313-2019
Lakhan
s/o Sh.Nam Dev
r/o H-140, Shahdara,
Old Seemapuri, Delhi-110095. ...Petitioner
Versus
(1)Rambhool (Driver)
s/o Sh.Ramanand
r/o Village Wajidpur, Jansath,
Distt. Muzaffar Nagar, U.P.
(2)The Regional Manager
UPSRTC, Khatoli Depot,
Saharanpur, U.P.
(3)LRs of deceased Har Pal s/o Sh.Jagroop Singh
(LRs of driver cum regd. owner of
EECO also died in this accident)
(i)Jagroop Singh
r/o H-133, H-Block,
Old Seemapuri, Delhi-110095.
(4)HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd.
(Insurer of EECO car)
Ambadeep Building,
14, KG Marg, New Delhi-110001. ... Respondents
Date of Institution : 13.11.2019
Date of Arguments : 18.09.2024
Date of pronouncement : 19.09.2024
AND
Digitally signed by
MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 SHELENDER SHELENDER
MALIK Page 1
MALIK Date: 2024.09.19
16:08:44 +0530
MACT No.404/2019
CNR- DLSH01-007314-2019
Mukesh
s/o Sh.Virender
r/o J-285, Railway Colony,
Punjab Line, Kotwali,
Distt. Ghaziabad. ...Petitioner
Versus
(1)Rambhool (Driver)
s/o Sh.Ramanand
r/o Village Wajidpur, Jansath,
Distt. Muzaffar Nagar, U.P.
(2)The Regional Manager
UPSRTC, Khatoli Depot,
Saharanpur, U.P.
(3)LRs of deceased Har Pal s/o Sh.Jagroop Singh
(LRs of driver cum regd. owner of
EECO also died in this accident)
(i)Jagroop Singh
r/o H-133, H-Block,
Old Seemapuri, Delhi-110095.
(4)HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd.
(Insurer of EECO car)
Ambadeep Building,
14, KG Marg, New Delhi-110001. ... Respondents
Date of Institution : 13.11.2019
Date of Arguments : 18.09.2024
Date of pronouncement : 19.09.2024
AND
MACT No.405/2019
Digitally signed
MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 SHELENDER
by SHELENDER
MALIK Page 2
MALIK Date:
2024.09.19
16:08:50 +0530
CNR- DLSH01-007315-2019
Gopal
s/o Sh.Ramhet
r/o 648/2, Barat Ghar ke Pass,
Jhabarpurwa, Dibiyapur, Dibiapur,
Auraiya, U.P.-206244. ...Petitioner
Versus
(1)Rambhool (Driver)
s/o Sh.Ramanand
r/o Village Wajidpur, Jansath,
Distt. Muzaffar Nagar, U.P.
(2)The Regional Manager
UPSRTC, Khatoli Depot,
Saharanpur, U.P.
(3)LRs of deceased Har Pal s/o Sh.Jagroop Singh
(LRs of driver cum regd. owner of
EECO also died in this accident)
(i)Jagroop Singh
r/o H-133, H-Block,
Old Seemapuri, Delhi-110095.
(4)HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd.
(Insurer of EECO car)
Ambadeep Building,
14, KG Marg, New Delhi-110001. ... Respondents
Date of Institution : 13.11.2019
Date of Arguments : 18.09.2024
Date of pronouncement : 19.09.2024
AND
MACT No.418/2019
CNR- DLSH01-007656-2019
Digitally signed
MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 SHELENDER by SHELENDER
MALIK
Page 3
MALIK Date: 2024.09.19
16:08:56 +0530
(1)Sapna (wife)
w/o late Sh.Rakesh Kumar
(2)Divyanshi (daughter)
d/o late Sh.Rakesh Kumar
(3)Chandrakant (son)
s/o late Sh.Rakesh Kumar
(4)Sita (mother)
w/o Sh.Yadram
(5)Yad Ram (father)
s/o Sh.Arjun Singh
all r/o H.No.88, Gram, Nivari,
Khanrika, Bhind,
Madhya Pradesh-477111.
Also at: A-62, Gali No.11,
Ambedkar, Ghaziabad,
U.P.-201009. ...Petitioners
Versus
(1)Rambhool (Driver)
s/o Sh.Ramanand
r/o Village Wajidpur, Jansath,
Distt. Muzaffar Nagar, U.P.
(2)The Regional Manager
UPSRTC, Khatoli Depot,
Saharanpur, U.P.
(3)LRs of deceased Har Pal s/o Sh.Jagroop Singh
(LRs of driver cum regd. owner of
EECO also died in this accident)
(i)Jagroop Singh
r/o H-133, H-Block,
Old Seemapuri, Delhi-110095.
Digitally signed
MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 by SHELENDER Page 4
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date:
2024.09.19
16:09:00 +0530
(4)HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd.
(Insurer of EECO car)
Ambadeep Building,
14, KG Marg, New Delhi-110001. ... Respondents
Date of Institution : 26.11.2019
Date of Arguments : 18.09.2024
Date of pronouncement : 19.09.2024
AND
MACT No.419/2019
CNR- DLSH01-007656-2019
Sachin
s/o Sh.Nanak Chand
r/o H.No.277, Gali No.3,
Near Railway Station, Sunder Puri,
Distt. Ghaziabad, U.P.-201009. ...Petitioner
Versus
(1)Rambhool (Driver)
s/o Sh.Ramanand
r/o Village Wajidpur, Jansath,
Distt. Muzaffar Nagar, U.P.
(2)The Regional Manager
UPSRTC, Khatoli Depot,
Saharanpur, U.P.
(3)LRs of deceased Har Pal s/o Sh.Jagroop Singh
(LRs of driver cum regd. owner of
EECO also died in this accident)
(i)Jagroop Singh
r/o H-133, H-Block,
Old Seemapuri, Delhi-110095.
(4)HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd.
(Insurer of EECO car)
Digitally signed
MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 by SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
Page 5
MALIK Date:
2024.09.19
16:09:06 +0530
Ambadeep Building,
14, KG Marg, New Delhi-110001. ... Respondents
Date of Institution : 26.11.2019
Date of Arguments : 18.09.2024
Date of pronouncement : 19.09.2024
AWAR D
1. By this common judgment this Tribunal propose to dispose off
five claim petitions MACT no.403/2019 titled as Lakhan vs. Rambhool and
ors. (this claim petition is regarding injuries suffered by petitioner Lakhan);
MACT No.404/2019 titled as Mukesh vs. Rambhool and ors. (this claim
petition is regarding injuries suffered by petitioner Mukesh); MACT
No.405/2019 titled as Gopal vs. Rambhool Etc. (this claim petition is
regarding injuries suffered by petitioner Gopal); MACT No.418/2019 titled
as Sapna and ors. vs. Rambhool and ors. (this claim petition is regarding
death of deceased Rakesh Kumar); and MACT No.419/2019 titled as
Sachin vs. Rambhool and ors. (this claim petition is regarding injuries
suffered by petitioner Sachin).
Common Facts
2. Since all the above mentioned claim petitions have arisen out
of one accident, the common facts regarding the accident are that on
12.05.2019 deceased Rakesh Kumar along with Surjeet s/o Ram Chander
(since expired), Harpal Singh (since expired) along with Sachin s/o Nanak
Chand, Gopal s/o Ramhit, Mukesh s/o Virender were returning to Delhi
from Khatoli, District Muzaffar Nagar, after attending a marriage function
in EECO car no.DL-5CE-6832 which was being driven by Harpal Singh. It
is mentioned in the claim petitions that at about 04.30 p.m. when above
Digitally signed
by SHELENDER
MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 SHELENDER MALIK Page 6
MALIK Date:
2024.09.19
16:09:11 +0530
said EECO car reached near Reliance Petrol Pump of Village Tigai, PS
Khatoli a UP Roadways bus bearing registration no.UP-11T-5527 stated to
have came in a very high speed being driven n a rash and negligent manner,
from the side of Meerut and after changing its lane hit the EECO car,
resultantly Rakesh Kumar, Harpal Singh and Surjeet sustained fatal injuries
and died at the spot whereas Lakhan, Sachin, Gopal and Mukesh sustained
grievous injuries. It is mentioned in the claim petitions that deceased and
injured were taken to CHC/PHC, District Muzaffar Nagar. In respect of
incidence of accident, FIR No.0238/2019 was registered on 12.05.2019 at
PS Khatoli, District Muzaffar Nagar.
3. Above mentioned five claim petitions have been filed against
respondent no.1, respondent no.2 being driver and owner of offending bus
no.UP-11T-5527 of UPSRTC; respondent no.3 is driver cum owner of
EECO car and respondent no.4 is the insurer of EECO car.
Facts of MACT No.403/2019
4. This claim petition is filed by petitioner Lakhan who is injured in the accident and was traveling in EECO car no.DL-5CE-6832. It is stated that petitioner suffered grievous injuries and was treated upon in CHC/PHC Muzaffar Nagar and later in SDS Global Super Specialty Hospital. Petitioner was 36 years of age at the time of accident and was working as labour at Old Delhi Railway Station and stated to be earning Rs.18,000/- per month in addition to the commission.
Facts of MACT No.404/20195. This claim petition is filed by petitioner Mukesh who is injured in the accident and was traveling in EECO car no.DL-5CE-6832. It is stated that petitioner suffered grievous injuries i.e. head injury with frontal compound communicated fracture with maxillofacial injury, fracture MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 Digitally signed by SHELENDER Page 7 SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.09.19 16:09:17 +0530 both bones of right leg and both bones of forearm. He was stated to be treated upon in CHC/PHC Muzaffar Nagar and later in SDS Global Super Specialty Hospital. Petitioner was 21 years of age at the time of accident and was working as labour at Old Delhi Railway Station and stated to be earning Rs.18,000/- per month in addition to the commission.
MACT No.405/20196. This claim petition is filed by petitioner Gopal who is injured in the accident and was traveling in EECO car no.DL-5CE-6832. It is stated that petitioner suffered grievous head injuries and other multiple injuries and was treated upon in CHC/PHC Muzaffar Nagar and later in SDS Global Super Specialty Hospital. Petitioner was 31 years of age at the time of accident and was working as labour at Old Delhi Railway Station and stated to be earning Rs.18,000/- per month in addition to the commission.
MACT No.418/20187. Petitioners in this case are LRs of deceased Rakesh Kumar who expired in the accident in question. Deceased was 27 years of age at the time of accident and was working as Field Executive with Hoper Tour and Travels Pvt. Ltd., Karol Bagh and was getting salary of Rs.18,500/- per month. Deceased left behind his wife, two minor children of 03 years and 01 years respectively as well as aged parents.
MACT No.419/20198. This claim petition is filed by petitioner Sachin who is injured in the accident and was traveling in EECO car no.DL-5CE-6832. It is stated that petitioner suffered severe head injuries with diffused axonal injury as well as other multiple injuries. Petitioner was treated upon in CHC/PHC Muzaffar Nagar and later in SDS Global Super Specialty MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 Digitally signed Page 8 SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.09.19 16:09:23 +0530 Hospital, it is stated that petitioner's family has already incurred Rs.7,50,000/- on medical treatment which is still going on as petitioner is lying on the bed in a vegetative condition and completely dependent on others. Petitioner was 32 years of age at the time of accident and was working as labour at Old Delhi Railway Station and stated to be earning Rs.18,000/- per month in addition to the commission.
9. During the course of proceedings of this case the medical condition of the petitioner was assessed by medical board of GTB Hospital, which assessed the permanent disability of the petitioner to the extent of 82% in relation to neurological and neuro-psycological disability. Common pleadings from respondents
10. WS has been filed on behalf of respondent no.1 in response to above mentioned all five claim petitions, wherein in common pleadings objections were taken that petitioners have concealed material facts as no accident has taken place from bus no.UP-11T-5527 as alleged. It is stated that respondent no.1 has been falsely implicated in this case. Petition is bad for misjoinder, non joinder of necessary parties, respondent no.1 was having valid DL no.UP12-20060019228 valid from 27.08.2018 to 26.08.2021. Respondent no.1 has never been driver of respondent no.2 (UPSRTC) at the time of accident. Case of the petitioners has been denied in totality.
11. Respondent no.2 (UPSRTC) has also filed the WS taking objection that claim petition is liable to be dismissed as no accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of UPSRTC. It is stated that on 12.05.2019 respondent no.1 was driving UPSRTC bus no. UP-11T-5527 on route from Delhi to Rishikesh, at correct side of the road and with normal speed. It is pleaded that when the bus reached near Digitally signed MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK Page 9 MALIK Date:
2024.09.19 16:09:28 +0530 Village Tigai, EECO car no.DL-5CE-6832 came at a very high speed from opposite directions and was uncontrolled by its driver while overtaking an unknown bike and in that manner that car came in the bus lane and collided with the bus. It is pleaded that as per VTS report installed in the said bus the location of the bus from Khatoli Muzaffar Nagar, was returning at normal speed between 4.36 p.m. to 4.48 p.m. on 12.05.2019. As such it is established that accident has not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bus no. UP-11T-5527. It is pleaded that FIR has been got lodged against the driver of the bus, in connivance with the police and driver of the UPSRTC has already lodged a complaint dated 13.05.2019 to SSP Muzaffar Nagar against his false implication. Case of the petitioners has been denied.
12. Respondent no.3/LRs of owner cum driver of EECO car no.DL-5CE-6832 have pleaded that claim petitions are bad for misjoinder of respondent no.3. It is pleaded that accident has occurred only because of rash and negligent driving of UPSRTC bus no. UP-11T-5527. It is however pleaded that EECO car was duly insured with respondent no.4.
13. Respondent no.4/insurer HDFC Ergo of EECO car has also taken similar plea as pleaded by respondent no.3 and reiterated that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bus no. UP-11T- 5527.
14. On the basis of pleadings as come in the respective claim petitions, following issues were framed in each of the claim petitions on 08.11.2021 :
MACT No.403/2019(1)Whether petitioner suffered injuries during the accident occurred on 12.05.2019 at about 04:30 pm infront of Reliance Petrol Pump, Digitally signed by SHELENDER MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 SHELENDER MALIK Page 10 MALIK Date:
2024.09.19 16:09:34 +0530 Village Tigai, PS Khatoli, District Mujjafar Nagar, U.P. within the jurisdiction of PS Khatoli, District Mujjafarnagar, U.P. due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing no.UP-11T-5527 being driven by respondent no.1/driver? OPP (2)Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP (3)Relief.MACT No.404/2019
(1)Whether petitioner suffered injuries during the accident occurred on 12.05.2019 at about 04:30 pm infront of Reliance Petrol Pump, Village Tigai, PS Khatoli, District Mujjafar Nagar, U.P. within the jurisdiction of PS Khatoli, District Mujjafarnagar, U.P. due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing no.UP-11T-5527 being driven by respondent no.1/driver? OPP (2)Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP (3)Relief.MACT No.405/2019
(1)Whether petitioner suffered injuries during the accident occurred on 12.05.2019 at about 04:30 pm infront of Reliance Petrol Pump, Village Tigai, PS Khatoli, District Mujjafar Nagar, U.P. within the jurisdiction of PS Khatoli, District Mujjafarnagar, U.P. due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing no.UP-11T-5527 being driven by respondent no.1/driver? OPP (2)Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP (3)Relief.MACT No.418/2019
(1)Whether respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle no.UP-11T-5527 on 12.05.2019 at about 04:30 pm infront of Reliance Petrol Pump, Village Tigai, PS Khatoli, District Mujjafar Nagar, U.P. within the jurisdiction of PS Khatoli, District Mujjafarnagar, U.P. in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of deceased Sh.Rakesh Kumar? OPP (2)Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 Digitally signed by SHELENDER Page 11 SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.09.19 16:09:39 +0530 extent and from whom? OPP (3)Relief.MACT No.419/2019
(1)Whether petitioner suffered injuries during the accident occurred on 12.05.2019 at about 04:30 pm infront of Reliance Petrol Pump, Village Tigai, PS Khatoli, District Mujjafar Nagar, U.P. within the jurisdiction of PS Khatoli, District Mujjafarnagar, U.P. due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing no.UP-11T-5527 being driven by respondent no.1/driver? OPP (2)Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP (3)Relief.
15. Vide order of ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal dated 08.11.2021 in MACT No.418/2019 all the claim petitions have been clubbed and it is ordered that evidence be recorded in MACT No.418/2019. Evidence
16. Common evidence has been recorded in respect of all the five claim petitions, some of the evidence was recorded in the Tribunal whereas certain evidence was recorded before ld. Local Commissioner. PW1 is Sapna w/o late Rakesh Kumar (Petitioner no.1 of claim petition no.418/2019). Aruna Devi w/o Nanak Chand has also been cited as PW1 (mother of injured Sachin), petitioner Gopal s/o Ramhit (of claim petition no.405/2019) has also been cited as PW1, PW2 is Dr.Vinod Kumar from IHBAS Hospital Delhi proving the disability certificate of petitioner Sachin, petitioner Lakhan has also been cited as PW2, PW3 is petitioner Mukesh s/o Virender.
17. On behalf of respondent no.1 and 2 driver/respondent no.1 Rambhool has appeared as R1W1, on behalf of respondent no.4 one witness R4W1 has been examined.
Digitally signed by SHELENDER MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 SHELENDER MALIK Page 12 MALIK Date: 2024.09.19 16:09:45 +0530 Submissions
18. I have heard Sh.Upender Singh, ld. Counsel for petitioners; Sh.Rishi Raj Sharma, ld. Counsel for respondent no.1; Sh.Pradeep Kumar Gupta, ld. Counsel for respondent no.2/UPSRTC; Sh.Pramod Kumar, ld. Counsel for respondent no.3; as well as Sh.Manjul Awasthi, ld. Counsel for respondent no.4/insurance company.
Issue No.1 (in all claim petitions)
19. It is settled proposition of law that an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non. However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition based upon negligence. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. Reference may be made to the judgments titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sakshi Bhutani & Others., MAC APP. No. 550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012, Bimla Devi & Others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Others (2009) 13 SC 530, Parmeshwari v. Amirchand & Others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 and Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Others 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
20. Sh.Upender Singh, ld. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that he though has arrayed respondent no.3 and 4 as proper parties, fact remains that in all the claim petitions it is pleaded that accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of UPSRTC bus no.UP-11T-5527. While drawing the attention of this Tribunal on site plan prepared by the local police during the investigation of criminal case, it is submitted that on perusal of the same it is evident that offending bus diverted to the other MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 Digitally signed by SHELENDER Page 13 SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.09.19 16:09:50 +0530 lane and went to the wrong side of the road and hit the EECO car coming from the opposite directions. As such the accident involving death of three persons and injury to four persons occurred due to its rash and negligent driving, therefore the claim is essentially against respondent no.1 and 2.
21. It is argued by Sh.Pradeep Gupta, ld. Counsel for UPSRTC that from the evidence of PW1 Gopal, PW2 Lakhan as well as from the cross examination of PW2 Dr.Vinod Kumar as well as material on the judicial record, it is evident that accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of driver of EECO car no.DL-5CE-6832. It is argued that seven persons were traveling in that car. Moreover the car was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. It came in the evidence that driver of the car while talking with other occupants lost control over the car and hit with the UPSRTC bus coming from the opposite side. As such it is argued that there is nothing on record establishing that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of UPSRTC bus no. UP-11T-5527.
22. Sh.Pradeep Kumar, ld. Counsel for respondent no.3 and Sh.Manjul Awasthi, ld. counsel for respondent no.4./insurer of EECO car have also submitted that there is no rash and negligent driving of EECO car no.DL-5CE-6832 proved on the record.
23. Having considered the submissions, if we examine the evidence, PW1 Sapna was not the eye witness to the accident. Similar is the situation with Aruna Devi. However injured/petitioners namely PW1 Gopal as well as PW2 Lakhan, PW3 Mukesh have testified in their examination in chief that on 12.05.2019 when above named persons were coming to Delhi from Khatoli in EECO car no.DL-5CE-6832 which was being driven by Haripal Singh (since expired), near village Tigai, UPSRTC bus no.UP-11T-5527 while coming at a very high speed from opposite MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 Digitally signed Page 14 SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.09.19 16:09:56 +0530 directions, being driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner hit the car and due to the great impact of the accident three occupants of the car died at the spot whereas other four received grievous multiple injuries.
24. No doubt it came in the cross examination of PW1 Gopal that there were seven occupants in EECO car, two persons were sitting on the front seat, three persons were sitting in the middle and rest two were sitting on the rear seat. PW1 also stated in cross examination that occupants of the car were talking to each other and driver of the car was also talking with them. PW1 Gopal further stated that he had not seen the bus before the accident took place. However this portion of cross examination of PW2 as highlighted by counsel for respondent no.2, does not establish that there was any rash and negligent driving of driver of EECO car. Rather it came in the cross examination of the same witness that car was being driven at the left side of the road and there was no vehicle ahead of that car. PW1 further says that car was being driven at the speed of 40 kmph and the width of the road was 25 to 30 feet and the offending bus was running towards right side of the road. Thus from the complete evidence of PW1 Gopal it is evident that he has testified consistently regarding rash and negligent driving of UPSRTC bus no.UP-11T-5527.
25. Similarly if we examine evidence of PW2 Lakhan who in his examination in chief has corroborated the other witnesses and remained consistent in his cross examination. PW2 Lakhan also stated that speed of the car was about 30 to 40 kmph whereas the speed of offending bus was 80 to 90 kmph. PW2 states that the car was on the left side of the road whereas offending bus hit against the car by coming on the wrong direction of the road. PW2 Lakhan also stated that driver of the car tried to avoid the accident but failed when bus hit the car from opposite directions. Similar is Digitally signed MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 by SHELENDER Page 15 SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.09.19 16:10:02 +0530 the evidence of PW3 Mukesh s/o Virender. PW3 Mukesh stated that he was sitting on rear side of the car and its speed was about 38 to 40 kmph. This witness also stated that he had not seen the offending bus prior to the accident and car was on the left side of the road when it was hit by the offending bus. Thus from the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 it is evident that their evidence remain consistent regarding the manner in which accident occurred.
26. Now if we examine the evidence of respondent no.1 Rambhool who was examined as R1W1, he has testified that on 12.05.2019 he has not met with any accident. PW R1W1 states that he has been falsely implicated in this case to get compensation illegally. Witness further states that he has no concerns or knowledge regarding FIR No.238/2019 of PS Khatoli u/s 279/338/304A and 427 IPC. In cross examination however R1W1 admits that he was arrested and granted bail in FIR No.238/2019. He further admits that he was driving offending vehicle no.UP-11T-5527, which was seized by the local police and later released on superdari. PW1 R1W1 voluntarily stated that he parked the vehicle in the depot and had gone to his home as no accident occurred from him. However his deposition is unbelievable, firstly because he himself admits that he is facing the prosecution in criminal case in respect of accident in question. Witness further admits that he has not filed any complaint or representation to any police authority or any other authority regarding his false implication. R1W1 voluntarily stated that he had given one application on the instructions of his Department/UPSRTC but admits that he had not filed any such application/complaint along with his affidavit of evidence.
27. It is argued by the counsel for UPSRTC that offending bus was equipped with VTS (Vehicle Tracking System) which established that at the Digitally signed MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 SHELENDER by SHELENDER Page 16 MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.09.19 16:10:08 +0530 relevant time, the speed of the bus was very normal. First of all this VTS has not been proved and therefore cannot be taken into consideration. Moreover if all such VTS is taken to be proved, it still does not conclusively establish the speed of the bus. Moreover it be noted that in certain situations of accident, mere speed of the offending vehicle may not be in itself sufficient to conclude regarding rash and negligent driving as speed of the bus is different than rash and negligent driving. In this case when the bus went towards the wrong side of the road, indicating in itself its negligence, question of its speed loses significance.
28. Evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 also get corroboration from the criminal case documents proved in the evidence of PW1 Ms.Sapna as Ex.PW1/8. If we examine the certified copy of criminal case documents it is evident from the site plan that offending bus went towards the right side of the road and hit the EECO car coming from the opposite directions. All these facts were duly noted by the IO in the statement of witnesses and filed the report u/s 173 Cr.PC. Thus from the discussion of above evidence, material available on the judicial record nothing has established proving negligent driving of EECO car. Rather it is established that accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of bus no. UP-11T-5527. Issue accordingly decided in favour of petitioners. Issue No.2
29. In view of the finding on issue no.1, petitioners are entitled to get compensation, however, the quantum of compensation still needs to be adjudicated. Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 enjoins upon the claim Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation, which appears to be just and reasonable. As per settled law, compensation is not expected to be windfall Digitally signed MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK Page 17 MALIK Date: 2024.09.19 16:10:14 +0530 or a bonanza nor it should be pittance. A man is not compensated for the physical injury, he is compensated for the loss which he suffers as a result of that injury (Baker v. Willoughby (1970) Ac 467 at page 492 per Lord Reid).
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
30. In death cases, the guidelines for computation of compensation have been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121. Further, the guidelines have been reiterated by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. Decided on 31.10.2017, laying down the general principles for computation of compensation in death cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced here as under:
"18. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death:
(a) age of the deceased;
(b) income of the deceased; and
(c) the number of dependents.
These issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are:
(i) additions/ deductions to be made for arriving at the income;
(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and
iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.
If these determinations are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay.
Digitally signed by SHELENDER MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 SHELENDER MALIK Page 18 MALIK Date: 2024.09.19 16:10:20 +0530
19. To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well-settled steps:
Step-1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balanc expired e which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step-2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step-3 (Actual Calculation) The annual contribution to the family(multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the 'loss of dependency' to the family.
Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be added as loss of estates. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of Rs.5,000 to Rs.10,000 should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and the cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 Digitally signed Page 19 SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.09.19 16:10:28 +0530 should also be added."
31. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgment, it is essential to take into consideration the following parameters:MACT No.418/2019
PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
Age of deceased
32. The widow of the deceased Rakesh Kumar, namely Smt.Sapna has appeared as PW1 and testified that at the time of death her husband was 27 years of age. PW1 proved copy of educational certificates of deceased as Ex.PW1/1 and his Aadhar card as Ex.PW1/2. As per high school certificate of the deceased, his date of birth is mentioned to be 15.08.1992.
Similar date of birth of deceased is mentioned in his Aadhar card Ex.PW1/2. These documents are conclusive proof of age of the deceased. As such deceased was aged 27 years at the time of accident. Assessment of Income of deceased
33. PW1 Smt.Sapna has testified in her evidence that her late husband was working as a Field Executive with Hoper Travel & Tours Pvt. Ltd and was getting salary of Rs.18,500/- per month. However during cross examination PW1 admitted that she does not know the nature of work of her husband. PW1 also admitted that she has not filed any document regarding income of her husband. PW1 has also not filed any document regarding post of her husband. In the absence of any documentary evidence showing any work or income of the deceased, this Tribunal assesses notional income of the deceased at parity with minimum wages of matriculate/skilled worker prevalent in U.P. at the time of accident keeping in view educational documents of deceased, for the reasons that accident in Digitally signed MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK Page 20 MALIK Date:
2024.09.19 16:10:32 +0530 question took place in UP, which is Rs.9,873/- per month. Application of Multiplier
34. As held above, deceased was 27 years of age at the time of accident. An appropriate multiplier has to be determined for computation of compensation. The judgment titled as Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 is relevant to consider the multiplier. In Para 21 of the judgment, the guidelines for the multiplier were laid down in accordance with age are as under:
MULTIPLIER AGE GROUP OF DECEASED
M-18 Age group between 15 to 20 & 21
to 25 years)
M-17 Age group between 26 to 30 yrs
M-16 Age group between 31 to 35 yrs
M-15 Age group between 36 to 40 yrs
M-14 Age group between 41 to 45 yrs
M-13 Age group between 46 to 50 yrs
M-11 Age group between 51 to 55 yrs
M-9 Age group between 56 to 60 yrs
M-7 Age group between 61 to 65 yrs
M-5 Age group between 66 and above
35. In view of the above, multiplier of 17 has to be applied against the age bracket of 26 to 30 years to determine the compensation. Future Prospects
36. This issue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi & Others (supra). Relevant parts of the judgment are reproduced here as under:
"(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased Digitally signed MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK Page 21 MALIK Date:
2024.09.19 16:10:38 +0530 towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case, the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component."
37. Since on the day of accident deceased was aged 27 years, in view of said fact this Tribunal finds that 40% of the income of deceased (aged below 40 years) has to be considered towards future prospects. Deduction towards Personal Living Expenses
38. After choosing the age, multiplier and income of the deceased, necessary deductions have to be made out of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, in para 30, laid down the necessary deductions towards personal living and expenses of deceased as under :
Deductions out of earning of the deceased Number of dependents Where dependent is 1 Half Where the number of dependent family 1/3rd members is 2 to 3 Where the number of dependent family 1/4th Digitally signed MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 SHELENDER by SHELENDER Page 22 MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.09.19 16:10:43 +0530 members is 4 to 6 Where the number of dependent family 1/5th members exceeds 6 (six)
39. Instant claim petition has been filed by five petitioners i.e. widow, children and parents of deceased. Since, the deceased was survived by five dependents, one-fourth of the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards his personal living expenses. NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
40. In case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), a compensation of Rs.40,000/-, 15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively has been fixed on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.40,000/-, 15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be granted and further, it is required to be enhanced @ 10% in every three years. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.48,000/-, 18,000/- and Rs.18,000/- respectively on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be granted. Further, in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 2705 of 2020, decided on 30.06.2020, loss of consortium has to be fixed for each of the LRs. Since, the deceased was survived by five legal heirs, therefore, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,76,000/- (48,000 X 5 + 18,000 + 18,000) under this head.
41. Considering the aforementioned factors, the total compensation is calculated as under:
S. No. Head Amount Awarded Digitally signed MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 Page 23 by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.09.19 16:10:51 +0530 1. Annul income of deceased (A) Rs.9,873/- 2. Add future prospect @ 40% (B) Rs.3,949/-
3. Less 1/4th towards personal and living Rs.3,456/-
expenses of the deceased (C)
4. Monthly loss of dependency (A+B)- Rs.10,366/-
C=D
5. Annual loss of dependency(DX12)=E Rs.1,24,392/-
6. Multiplier (F) 177. Total loss of dependency (E x F=G) Rs.21,14,664/-
8. Compensation for loss of consortium Rs.2,40,000/-
(Rs.48,000 X 5) (H)
9. Compensation for loss of estate (I) Rs.18,000/-
10. Compensation for funeral expenses (J) Rs.18,000/-
Total compensation (G + H + I + J) Rs.23,90,664/-
42. Thus, petitioners in this case shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.23,90,664/- only.
INTEREST ON AWARD
43. Petitioners shall also be entitled to interest @ 8% per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
In MACT No.419/2019Issue No.2
44. The scope of compensation in injury cases has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Mr. R.D. Hattangadi v. M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 AIR 755. The relevant extract is as under:
"Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are Digitally signed MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK Page 24 MALIK Date:
2024.09.19 16:10:59 +0530 those which the victim has actually incurred and which is capable of being calculated in terms of money-, whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may, include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit upto the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non- pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit;
(iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, discomfort, disappointment, hardship, frustration and mental stress in life."
45. Further, in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & another (2011) 1 SCC 343, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India laid down general principles for computation of compensation in injury cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced as under:
4. The provisions 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 Digitally signed MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 by SHELENDER Page 25 SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2024.09.19 16:11:04 +0530 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.
5. 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 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.
46. In the light of the aforementioned judgments, the compensation Digitally signed MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 SHELENDER by SHELENDER Page 26 MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.09.19 16:11:10 +0530 to which the petitioner is entitled shall be as under:-
PECUNIARY DAMAGES :
Medical Expenses
47. This case is injuries sustained by petitioner/injured Sachin in the accident in question. To prove the medical expenses incurred, PW1 Mrs.Aruna Devi (mother of petitioner Sachin) in her deposition stated that in the accident her son Sachin suffered grievous injury i.e. severe head injury with diffuse axonal injury and other multiple injuries. PW1 states that initially her son was taken to CHC/PHC, Muzaffar Nagar and thereafter he was taken to Chhatrapati Shivaji Subharti Hospital, Meerut, UP where he remained hospitalized from 19.05.2019 to 25.06.2019, 01.07.2019 to 03.07.2019 and from 08.07.2019 to 12.07.2019. PW1 states that medical treatment of her son is still continuing as an outdoor patient. Witness says that she has incurred Rs.8,00,000/- on medical treatment of her son. PW1 proved medical treatment record as Ex.PW1/1 (colly.) and medical bills of injured Sachin as Ex.PW1/2 (colly.).
48. Perusal of medical bills of petitioner Ex.PW1/2 (colly.) shows that the witness has annexed total medical bills amounting to Rs.1,50,786/-. There is no other medical bill of petitioner on record. Thus, petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,50,786/- under the head of medical expenses.
Loss of Income as well as future prospects
49. PW1 Smt.Aruna Devi (mother of petitioner Sachin) in her deposition stated that at the time of accident injured Sachin was 32 years of age and he was working as a labour (loading de-loading) at Old Delhi Railway Station, Delhi and was earning Rs.18,000/- per month in addition to commission. PW1 says in her evidence that ever since the petitioner has Digitally signed MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 SHELENDER by SHELENDER Page 27 MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.09.19 16:11:15 +0530 sustained injuries, he could not work for his livelihood because of the disability. Prior to the accident petitioner was though working as labour, however in the evidence of PW1 it has come that there is no documentary evidence to prove his income to be Rs.18,000/- per month as claimed. In the absence of any such evidence or material, this Tribunal assesses notional income of the petitioner at parity with minimum wages of unskilled worker in UP at the time of accident i.e. Rs.8,013/- per month.
50. When the question comes as to the assessing the compensation on the ground of loss of income, this Tribunal has already concluded that notional income of the petitioner to be Rs.8,013/- per month. It is evident from the evidence as well as disability certificate from the evidence of PW2 Dr.Vinod Kumar that petitioner has suffered 82/% permanent neurological and neuro-psychological disability. The nature of disability and the injuries on the head of the petitioner clearly establish that ever since the petitioner has suffered the injuries, petitioner is immobile and lying on the bed. As such loss of income of the petitioner would required to be assessed for rest of his life. In such circumstance for calculating loss of income, the multiplier would be adopted as per age of the petitioner. As is evident from the evidence of mother of the petitioner PW1, at the time of accident petitioner was 32 years old. Accordingly multiplier of 16 is taken.
51. This Tribunal would also add in the amount of compensation for future prospects while calculating loss of income. Therefore in the light of judgment in case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 343, considering the nature of injuries, permanent disability since the petitioner is confined to bed and is unable to work for whole of his life, his functional disability would be calculated to be 100% of medical disability which is 82%. Accordingly the amount of compensation calculated is Rs.8,013 + Digitally signed MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 SHELENDER by SHELENDER Page 28 MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.09.19 16:11:21 +0530 40% X 12 X 16 X 82/100 = Rs.17,66,193/-. Beside this this Tribunal considers that petitioner is also entitled for loss of income for one year i.e. Rs.8,013 X 12 = Rs.96,156/-. As such total compensation under the above said head would be Rs.18,62,349/- (Rs.17,66,193 + Rs.96,156). Special Diet & Conveyance Charges:
52. PW1 Smt.Aruna Devi, mother of petitioner deposed that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was spent on special diet and Rs.1,50,000/- on conveyance. However during cross examination PW1 admitted that she has no documentary proof of incurring any such amount on special diet and conveyance. It is matter of record that no evidence has been placed on record by the petitioner in support of such claim.
53. Since it has come on record that petitioner suffered grievous injuries on his head and other multiple injuries. Thus keeping in view grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that petitioner must have incurred expenses towards special diet for well being during the period of treatment and also incurred expenses towards going to hospitals/doctors. Thus this Tribunal awards compensation of Rs.50,000/- each under the head of special diet and conveyance charges to the petitioner.
Attendant Charges:
54. Though PW1 Smt.Aruna Devi stated that expense of Rs.3,00,000/- has been made towards attendant charges, however there is no evidence of engaging any attendant nor any documentary evidence in this regard has been proved. However still keeping in view the nature of injuries on vital organ i.e. head and also keeping in view the medical disability suffered by the petitioner, he is granted attendant charges at parity with minimum wages of unskilled worker in UP i.e. Rs. 8,013/- per month.
Digitally signedMACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK Page 29 MALIK Date:
2024.09.19 16:11:27 +0530 Keeping in view the fact that petitioner is confined to bed since the day of his accident and needs an attendant for entire life, therefore by applying the multiplier of 16, he is awarded compensation of Rs.15,38,496/- (Rs.8,013 X 12 x 16) under this head.
NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES :
Pain & Sufferings:
55. While discussing the criteria to ascertain the compensation for pain and sufferings by victim of vehicular accident, observations of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Satya Narain v. Jai Kishan, FAO No:
709/02, date of decision: 02.02.2007 can be considered:
"12. On account of pain and suffering, suffice would it be to note that it is difficult to measure pain and suffering in terms of a money value. However, compensation which has to be paid must bear some objectives co-relation with the pain and suffering.
13. The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering would be:
(a) Nature of injury.
(b) Body part affected
(c) Duration of the treatment."
56. In this case, as per the evidence of mother of petitioner/ injured, medical bills, disability certificate and other material, he was found to have suffered grievous injuries on his head. Thus, it is clear that petitioner must have suffered immense pain and suffering during treatment and therefore, this Tribunal is of the opinion that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- would be just and fair compensation for pain, sufferings and mental trauma suffered by the petitioner as consequences of injuries sustained in the accident. Accordingly, Rs.2,00,000/- is granted to the petitioner under this head.
Digitally signed MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK Page 30 MALIK Date: 2024.09.19 16:11:33 +0530 Loss of Amenities:
57. Keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, medical bills, permanent disability and other material available on record, it cannot be ignored that with the aforementioned medical condition and permanent disability due to sustaining grievous injuries in the accident in question, petitioner is bound to face difficulties throughout life and will not be able to enjoy the amenities of life to the fullest. In view of this, the petitioner is granted a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under this head.
Loss of marriage prospects
58. It is matter of record that petitioner has suffered accidental injuries due to which he suffered neurological and neuro-psychological disability. It is again a matter of record that he has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 82% which has been assessed by this Tribunal to be 41% in relation to whole body. In such circumstances beside medical and physical difficulties, petitioner must have suffered many psychological issues including loss of future prospects/avenues as well as loss of marriage prospects. No amount of compensation can be just and fair for determining the loss of future prospects including marriage prospects but at the same time the Tribunal has to strike a balance by awarding monetary compensation which would work as a solace and support for petitioner. Given the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner and permanent disability, this Tribunal considers it appropriate to award sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards future prospects and loss of marriage prospects as a non-pecuniary compensation.
59. Thus, the compensation awarded to the petitioner is summarized as under:-
Digitally signedMACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 SHELENDER by SHELENDER Page 31 MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.09.19 16:11:39 +0530 Sl. No. Head of compensation Amount
1. Medical Expenses Rs.1,50,786/-
2. Loss of Income as well as Rs.18,62,349/-
future prospects
4. Special Diet Rs.50,000/-
5. Conveyance charges Rs.50,000/-
6. Attendant charges Rs.15,38,496/-
7. Pain & Suffering Rs.2,00,000/-
8. Loss of Amenities Rs.1,00,000/-
9. Loss of marriage Rs.1,00,000/-
prospects Total Rs.40,51,631/-
60. Thus, the total compensation amount to which the petitioner is entitled comes to Rs.40,51,631/-.
INTEREST ON AWARD
61. Petitioner shall also be entitled to interest @ 8% per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
In MACT No.403/2019Issue No.2
62. In view of ratio laid down in Mr. R.D. Hattangadi v. M/s Pest Control (supra) and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (supra) , the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled shall be as under:-
PECUNIARY DAMAGES :
Medical Expenses
63. This case is regarding sustaining injuries by petitioner/injured Lakhan. Petitioner Lakhan has been examined as PW2. PW2 beside giving account of the accident stated that after the accident he received Digitally signed by MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 Page 32 SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.09.19 16:11:45 +0530 multiple grievous injuries and was taken to CHC/PHC, Muzaffar Nagar, UP where first aid was given to him and thereafter he was taken to SDS Global Super Speciality Hospital where he remained hospitalized from 12.05.2019 to 13.05.2019. Witness says that he incurred Rs.75,000/- on his medical treatment. PW2 proved medical treatment record as Ex.PW2/1 (colly.) and medical bills as Ex.PW2/2 (colly.). Having taken into consideration the above said bills the amount of those bills comes out to be Rs.38,371/-. Nothing came in the cross examination of PW2 for contradicting the medical expenses/bills Ex.PW2/2. Thus petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.38,371/- under the head of medical expenses. Loss of earning during treatment
64. As per the evidence of PW2 Lakhan, after the accident he was taken to CHC/PHC, Muzaffar Nagar and thereafter he was taken to SDS Global Super Speciality Hospital where he remained hospitalized from 12.05.2019 to 13.05.2019. Medical treatment record of the petitioner/ injured has been proved on record as Ex.PW2/1 which also shows that from SDS Hospital, petitioner was referred to GTB Hospital, Delhi. In such circumstances keeping in view the medical treatment record, evidence of PW2, this Tribunal finds that petitioner suffered injuries for which he must have taken treatment only for one month.
65. Coming now to the question of income of the petitioner/injured, PW2 Lakhan testifies that at the time of accident he was 36 years old, he was working as labour (loading deloading) at Old Delhi Railway Station and was earning Rs.18,000/- per month in addition to commission. However during cross examination PW2 stated that he does not have any document to prove that at the time of accident he was earning Rs.18,000/- per month while working as a labour, though PW2 stated that MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 Digitally signed by SHELENDER Page 33 SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.09.19 16:11:52 +0530 at the time of accident he was working as a labourer at Old Delhi Railway Station. In such circumstance notional income of the petitioner is taken at parity with minimum wages of unskilled worker in UP which at the time of accident is Rs.8,013/- per month.
66. Accordingly petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.8,013/- under the above said heading.
Special Diet & Conveyance Charges:
67. Petitioner/PW2 Lakhan in his evidence deposed that he incurred a sum of Rs.20,000/- each on special diet and conveyance charges. However it is matter of record that no evidence or document has been filed by the petitioner to substantiate his claim of incurring Rs.20,000/- on the above said heads. However keeping in view the medical treatment record which shows that petitioner suffered injury on his right shoulder and wound over forehead, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that petitioner must have incurred expenses towards special diet for well being during the period of treatment and also incurred expenses towards going to hospitals/ doctors. Thus this Tribunal awards compensation of Rs.10,000/- each under the head of special diet and conveyance charges to the petitioner. Attendant Charges:
68. Though petitioner/injured in his evidence stated that he incurred expenses of Rs.50,000/- on attendant charges, however there is no material on record in support of such claim regarding engaging any attendant charges nor any documentary evidence in this regard has been proved. However it is matter of record that petitioner has been granted compensation for loss of income due to treatment for a period of one month. Therefore keeping in view the nature of injuries, petitioner is granted compensation under the above head at parity with minimum wages Digitally signed MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK Page 34 MALIK Date:
2024.09.19 16:11:58 +0530 of unskilled worker in UP at the time of accident i.e. Rs.8,013/-. NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES :
Pain & Sufferings:
69. In view of ratio of judgment in case of Satya Narain v. Jai Kishan, FAO No: 709/02 (supra), in this case as per the evidence of petitioner/injured, medical bills and other material, he was found to have suffered grievous injuries over his shoulder and wound over forehead. Thus, it is clear that petitioner must have suffered pain and suffering during treatment and therefore, this Tribunal is of the opinion that an amount of Rs.35,000/- would be just and fair compensation for pain, sufferings and mental trauma suffered by the petitioner as consequences of injuries sustained in the accident. Accordingly, Rs.35,000/- is granted to the petitioner under this head.
Loss of Amenities:
70. Keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, medical bills and other material available on record, it cannot be ignored that with the aforementioned medical condition and due to sustaining grievous injuries in the accident in question, petitioner is bound to face difficulties and will not be able to enjoy the amenities of life to the fullest. In view of this, the petitioner is granted a compensation of Rs.20,000/- under this head.
71. Thus, the compensation awarded to the petitioner is summarized as under:-
Sl. No. Head of compensation Amount
1. Medical Expenses Rs.38,371/-
2. Loss of earning during Rs.8,013/-
treatment
MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 Digitally signed
by SHELENDER Page 35
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date: 2024.09.19
16:12:03 +0530
3. Special Diet Rs.10,000/-
4. Conveyance charges Rs.10,000/-
5. Attendant charges Rs.8,013/-
6. Pain & Suffering Rs.35,000/-
7. Loss of Amenities Rs.20,000/-
Total Rs.1,29,397/-
72. Thus, the total compensation amount to which the petitioner is entitled comes to Rs.1,29,397/-.
INTEREST ON AWARD
73. Petitioner shall also be entitled to interest @ 8% per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
In MACT No.404/2019Issue No.2
74. In view of ratio laid down in Mr. R.D. Hattangadi v. M/s Pest Control (supra) and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (supra) , the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled shall be as under:-
PECUNIARY DAMAGES :
Medical Expenses
75. This case is regarding sustaining injuries by petitioner/injured Mukesh. Petitioner Mukesh has been examined as PW3. PW3 has given the account of the accident and stated that in the accident he received grievous injuries i.e. head injury with frontal compound communicated fracture with maxillofacial injury with fracture of both bone of right leg, both bone forearm apart from other multiple injuries. PW3 stated that initially he was taken to CHC/PHC, Muzaffar Nagar, UP where from he taken to SDS Global Super Speciality Hospital where he remained Digitally signed MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 SHELENDER by SHELENDER Page 36 MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.09.19 16:12:09 +0530 hospitalized from 12.05.2019 to 02.06.2019. Witness says that he incurred Rs.8,00,000/- on his medical treatment. PW3 proved his medical treatment record as Ex.PW3/1 (colly.) and medical bills as Ex.PW3/2 (colly.). Having taken into consideration the above said bills the amount of those bills comes out to be Rs.3,98,000/-. Nothing came in the cross examination of PW3 for contradicting the medical expenses/bills Ex.PW3/2. Thus petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.3,98,000/- under the head of medical expenses.
Loss of earning during treatment
76. As per the evidence of PW3 Mukesh after the accident he was taken to CHC/PHC, Muzaffar Nagar and thereafter he was taken to SDS Global Super Speciality Hospital where he remained hospitalized from 12.05.2019 to 02.06.2019. Medical treatment record of the petitioner/ injured has been proved on record as Ex.PW3/1 including discharge summary which shows that petitioner/injured Mukesh remained hospitalized in SDS Global Hospital from 12.05.2019 to 02.06.2019. In such circumstances keeping in view the medical treatment record, evidence of PW2, this Tribunal finds that petitioner suffered injuries for which he must have taken treatment only for three months.
77. Coming now to the question of income of the petitioner/injured, PW3 Mukesh testifies that at the time of accident he was 21 years old, he was working as labour (loading deloading) at Old Delhi Railway Station and was earning Rs.18,000/- per month in addition to commission. However during cross examination PW3 stated that he does not have any document to prove that at the time of accident he was earning Rs.18,000/- per month while working as a labour, though PW2 stated that at the time of accident he was working as a labourer at Old Delhi Railway MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 Digitally signed by SHELENDER Page 37 SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.09.19 16:12:16 +0530 Station. In such circumstance notional income of the petitioner is taken at parity with minimum wages of skilled worker in UP keeping in view his educational documents Ex.PW3/3 which at the time of accident is Rs.9,873/- per month.
78. Accordingly petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.29,619/- (Rs.9,873/- X 03 months) under the above said heading. Special Diet & Conveyance Charges:
79. Petitioner/PW3 Mukesh in his evidence deposed that he incurred a sum of Rs.50,000/- each on special diet and conveyance charges. However it is matter of record that no evidence or document has been filed by the petitioner to substantiate his claim of incurring Rs.50,000/- on the above said heads. However keeping in view the medical treatment record which shows that petitioner suffered grievous injury on his head with compound communicated fracture, maxillofacial injury with fracture of both bones of right leg and forearm, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that petitioner must have incurred expenses towards special diet for well being during the period of treatment and also incurred expenses towards going to hospitals/ doctors. Thus this Tribunal awards compensation of Rs.20,000/- each under the head of special diet and conveyance charges to the petitioner.
Attendant Charges:
80. Though petitioner/injured in his evidence stated that he incurred expenses of Rs.80,000/- on attendant charges, however there is no material on record in support of such claim regarding engaging any attendant charges nor any documentary evidence in this regard has been proved. However it is matter of record that petitioner has been granted compensation for loss of income due to treatment for a period of three MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 Digitally signed Page 38 by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.09.19 16:12:22 +0530 months. Therefore keeping in view the nature of injuries and medical treatment record, petitioner is granted compensation under the above head at parity with minimum wages of unskilled worker in UP at the time of accident for three months i.e. Rs.8,013/- per month, which comes out to be Rs.24,039/- (Rs.8,013 X 03 months) NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES :
Pain & Sufferings:
81. In view of ratio of judgment in case of Satya Narain v. Jai Kishan, FAO No: 709/02 (supra), in this case as per the evidence of petitioner/injured, medical bills and other material, he was found to have suffered grievous injuries over his head and fractures on leg and forearm apart from other injuries. Thus, it is clear that petitioner must have suffered pain and suffering during treatment and therefore, this Tribunal is of the opinion that an amount of Rs.40,000/- would be just and fair compensation for pain, sufferings and mental trauma suffered by the petitioner as consequences of injuries sustained in the accident. Accordingly, Rs.40,000/- is granted to the petitioner under this head. Loss of Amenities:
82. Keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, medical bills and other material available on record, it cannot be ignored that with the aforementioned medical condition and due to sustaining grievous injuries in the accident in question, petitioner is bound to face difficulties and will not be able to enjoy the amenities of life to the fullest. In view of this, the petitioner is granted a compensation of Rs.25,000/- under this head.
83. Thus, the compensation awarded to the petitioner is summarized as under:-
Digitally signedMACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 SHELENDER by SHELENDER Page 39 MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.09.19 16:12:28 +0530 Sl. No. Head of compensation Amount
1. Medical Expenses Rs.3,98,000/-
2. Loss of earning during Rs.29,619/-
treatment
3. Special Diet Rs.20,000/-
4. Conveyance charges Rs.20,000/-
5. Attendant charges Rs.24,039/-
6. Pain & Suffering Rs.40,000/-
7. Loss of Amenities Rs.25,000/-
Total Rs.5,56,658/-
84. Thus, the total compensation amount to which the petitioner is entitled comes to Rs.5,56,658/-.
INTEREST ON AWARD
85. Petitioner shall also be entitled to interest @ 8% per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of the petition till realization.In MACT No.405/2019
Issue No.2
86. In view of ratio laid down in Mr. R.D. Hattangadi v. M/s Pest Control (supra) and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (supra) , the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled shall be as under:-
PECUNIARY DAMAGES :
Medical Expenses
87. This case is regarding sustaining injuries by petitioner/injured Gopal. Petitioner Gopal has been examined as PW1. PW1 Gopal has also given the account of the manner in which accident occurred and stated that after the accident he received grievous injury on his head and was taken to Digitally signed by SHELENDER MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 SHELENDER MALIK Page 40 MALIK Date:
2024.09.19 16:12:34 +0530 CHC/PHC, Muzaffar Nagar, UP and thereafter he was taken to SDS Global Super Speciality Hospital where he remained hospitalized from 12.05.2019 to 14.05.2019. Witness says that he incurred Rs.1,00,000/- on his medical treatment. PW1 proved medical treatment record as Ex.PW1/1 (colly.) and medical bills as Ex.PW1/2 (colly.). Having taken into consideration the above said bills the amount of those bills comes out to be Rs.39,088/-. Nothing came in the cross examination of PW1 Gopal for contradicting the medical expenses/bills Ex.PW1/2. Thus petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.39,088/- under the head of medical expenses. Loss of earning during treatment
88. As per the evidence of PW1 Gopal, after the accident he was taken to CHC/PHC, Muzaffar Nagar and thereafter he was taken to SDS Global Super Speciality Hospital where he remained hospitalized from 12.05.2019 to 14.05.2019. Medical treatment record of the petitioner/ injured has been proved on record as Ex.PW1/1 including discharge summary which shows that petitioner Gopal remained admitted in SDS Hospital from 12.05.2019 to 14.05.2019. In such circumstances keeping in view the medical treatment record, evidence of PW1 Gopal, this Tribunal finds that petitioner suffered injuries for which he must have taken treatment only for one month.
89. Coming now to the question of income of the petitioner/injured, PW1 Gopal testifies that at the time of accident he was 31 years old, he was working as labour (loading deloading) at Old Delhi Railway Station and was earning Rs.18,000/- per month in addition to commission. However during cross examination PW1 admitted that he has not filed any document to show his income Rs.18,000/- per month. Even otherwise there is no documentary evidence on record showing work/job or MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 Digitally signed Page 41 SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.09.19 16:12:40 +0530 income of the petitioner at the time of accident. In such circumstance notional income of the petitioner is taken at parity with minimum wages of unskilled worker in UP which at the time of accident is Rs.8,013/- per month.
90. Accordingly petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.8,013/- under the above said heading. Special Diet & Conveyance Charges:
91. Petitioner/PW1 Gopal in his evidence deposed that he incurred a sum of Rs.25,000/- each on special diet and conveyance charges.
However it is matter of record that no evidence or document has been filed by the petitioner to substantiate his claim of incurring Rs.25,000/- on the above said heads. However keeping in view the medical treatment record which shows that petitioner suffered injury on his head, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that petitioner must have incurred expenses towards special diet for well being during the period of treatment and also incurred expenses towards going to hospitals/doctors. Thus this Tribunal awards compensation of Rs.10,000/- each under the head of special diet and conveyance charges to the petitioner.
Attendant Charges:
92. Though petitioner/injured in his evidence stated that he incurred expenses of Rs.50,000/- on attendant charges, however there is no material on record in support of such claim regarding engaging any attendant charges nor any documentary evidence in this regard has been proved. However it is matter of record that petitioner has been granted compensation for loss of income due to treatment for a period of one month. Therefore keeping in view the nature of injuries, petitioner is granted compensation under the above head at parity with minimum wages Digitally signed MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK Page 42 MALIK Date:
2024.09.19 16:12:45 +0530 of unskilled worker in UP at the time of accident i.e. Rs.8,013/-. NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES :
Pain & Sufferings:
93. In view of ratio of judgment in case of Satya Narain v. Jai Kishan, FAO No: 709/02 (supra), in this case as per the evidence of petitioner/injured, medical bills and other material, he was found to have suffered grievous injuries over his head. Thus, it is clear that petitioner must have suffered pain and suffering during treatment and therefore, this Tribunal is of the opinion that an amount of Rs.35,000/- would be just and fair compensation for pain, sufferings and mental trauma suffered by the petitioner as consequences of injuries sustained in the accident.
Accordingly, Rs.35,000/- is granted to the petitioner under this head. Loss of Amenities:
94. Keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, medical bills and other material available on record, it cannot be ignored that with the aforementioned medical condition and due to sustaining grievous injuries in the accident in question, petitioner is bound to face difficulties and will not be able to enjoy the amenities of life to the fullest. In view of this, the petitioner is granted a compensation of Rs.20,000/- under this head.
95. Thus, the compensation awarded to the petitioner is summarized as under:-
Sl. No. Head of compensation Amount
1. Medical Expenses Rs.39,088/-
2. Loss of earning during Rs.8,013/-
treatment
3. Special Diet Rs.10,000/-
Digitally signed
MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 by SHELENDER Page 43
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date: 2024.09.19
16:12:51 +0530
4. Conveyance charges Rs.10,000/-
5. Attendant charges Rs.8,013/-
6. Pain & Suffering Rs.35,000/-
7. Loss of Amenities Rs.20,000/-
Total Rs.1,30,114/-
96. Thus, the total compensation amount to which the petitioner is entitled comes to Rs.1,30,114/-.
INTEREST ON AWARD
97. Petitioner shall also be entitled to interest @ 8% per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of the petition till realization. LIABILITY
98. Now, the question arises as to which of the respondent is liable to pay the compensation amount. Keeping in view the findings on issue no.1, respondent no.1 and 2 (being driver and owner/UPSRTC) are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.Relief in MACT No.418/19
99. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.23,90,664/- to the petitioners along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization to be paid by respondent no.1 and 2 jointly and severally. Amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the compensation amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case. The respondent no.1 and 2 are directed to deposit the award amount in A/c no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code UCBA0002078), UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT, Shahdara, through RTGS/ NEFT, within 30 days from today.Digitally signed
MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 by SHELENDER Page 44 SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2024.09.19 16:12:57 +0530 Respondent no.1 and 2 are also directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioners.
Disbursement and Apportionment of Award Amount in MACT No.418/19
100. The awarded amount is proportioned as under:
(i) A sum of Rs.2,39,664/- is directed to be released into the saving account of petitioner no.1 (widow of deceased) and amount of Rs.6,51,000/- along with interest on entire awarded amount is directed to be kept in her name with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in the form of FDR for seven years with monthly accruing interest.
(ii) A sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each is directed to be kept in the name of petitioner no.2 and 3 (minor children of deceased) in the form of FDRs for a period till they attain age of majority.
(iii) A sum of Rs.2,50,000/- each is directed to be kept in the name of petitioner no.4 and 5 (parents of deceased) in the form of FDRs for a period of five years with monthly accruing interest.
101. The amount of FDRs on maturity shall directly be released in petitioners' MACT Saving Bank Account.
Relief in MACT No.419/19102. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.40,51,631/- to the petitioner along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization to be paid by respondent no.1 and 2 jointly and severally. Amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the compensation amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case. The respondent no.1 and 2 are directed to deposit the award amount in A/c no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code UCBA0002078), UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT, Shahdara, through RTGS/ NEFT, within 30 days from today. Respondent no.1 and 2 are also directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioners.
Digitally signed by SHELENDER MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 SHELENDER MALIK Page 45 MALIK Date: 2024.09.19 16:13:03 +0530
Disbursement and Apportionment of Award Amount in MACT No.419/19
103. The awarded amount is proportioned as under:
(i) A sum of Rs.4,51,631/- is directed to be released into the saving account of petitioner Sachin and remaining amount of Rs.36,00,000/-
along with interest on entire awarded amount is directed to be kept in his name with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in the form of FDR for seven years with monthly accruing interest.
104. The amount of FDR on maturity shall directly be released in petitioner's MACT Saving Bank Account.
Relief in MACT No.403/19105. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.1,29,397/- to the petitioner along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization to be paid by respondent no.1 and 2 jointly and severally. Amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the compensation amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case. The respondent no.1 and 2 are directed to deposit the award amount in A/c no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code UCBA0002078), UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT, Shahdara, through RTGS/ NEFT, within 30 days from today. Respondent no.1 and 2 are also directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioner.
Disbursement and Apportionment of Award Amount in MACT No.403/19
106. Entire amount of compensation of Rs.1,29,397/- along with interest accrued thereon is directed to be released into the saving account of petitioner Lakhan.
Digitally signed by SHELENDER MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 SHELENDER MALIK Page 46 MALIK Date: 2024.09.19 16:13:09 +0530 Relief in MACT No.404/19
107. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.5,56,658/- to the petitioner along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization to be paid by respondent no.1 and 2 jointly and severally. Amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the compensation amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case. The respondent no.1 and 2 are directed to deposit the award amount in A/c no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code UCBA0002078), UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT, Shahdara, through RTGS/ NEFT, within 30 days from today. Respondent no.1 and 2 are also directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioner.
Disbursement and Apportionment of Award Amount in MACT No.404/19
108. Out of the awarded amount, a sum of Rs.56,658/- is directed to be released into the saving account of petitioner Mukesh and amount of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest on entire awarded amount is directed to be kept in his name with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in the form of FDR for five years with monthly accruing interest.
109. The amount of FDR on maturity shall directly be released in petitioner's MACT Saving Bank Account.
Relief in MACT No.405/19110. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.1,30,114/- to the petitioner along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization to be paid by respondent no.1 and 2 jointly and severally. Amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the compensation amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed Digitally signed MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 SHELENDER by SHELENDER Page 47 MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.09.19 16:13:17 +0530 by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case. The respondent no.1 and 2 are directed to deposit the award amount in A/c no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code UCBA0002078), UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT, Shahdara, through RTGS/ NEFT, within 30 days from today. Respondent no.1 and 2 are also directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioner.
Disbursement and Apportionment of Award Amount in MACT No.405/19
111. Entire amount of compensation of Rs.1,30,114/- along with interest accrued thereon is directed to be released into the saving account of petitioner Gopal.
Direction to petitioners in all claim petitions
112. The petitioners shall open a saving bank account near the place of their residence. Further, the bank of petitioners is directed to comply with the following conditions:
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant i.e., the savings bank account of the claimant shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit 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.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant. However, in case the debit card and/or cheque Digitally signed MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK Page 48 MALIK Date:
2024.09.19 16:13:22 +0530 book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the claimant so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant 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 shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
113. All files be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date: 2024.09.19
16:13:28 +0530
Announced in the open Court ( Shailender Malik )
on 19.09.2024 PO MACT-02/SHD/KKD
MACT Nos.403/19, 404/19, 405/19, 418/19, 419/19 Page 49