Delhi District Court
Shri Vikram Singh vs Shri Anil Kumar on 20 January, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ARUN BHARDWAJ
PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNALII,
DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
MACT Nos. 170/12/11 and 171/12/11
IN THE MATTER OF :
(i) MACT No. 170/12/11
Shri Vikram Singh,
S/o Shri Lal Singh,
R/o Barrack No. 1,
P.S. Kapashera, New Delhi.
... Claimant
Versus
1. Shri Anil Kumar, (Driver & Owner)
S/o Shri Balwan Singh,
R/o Priya Colony W. No. 1,
H. No. 45, Jhajjar,
P.S. Jhajjar (Haryana).
2. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (Insurer)
D. No. 10, Flat No. 101106,
NI, BMC House,
Connaught Place,
New Delhi - 110 001.
... Respondents
Filed on : 12.05.2011
Reserved : 17.01.2014
Decided on : 20.01.2014
AND
MACT No. 170/12/11 Shri Vikram Singh Vs. Shri Anil Kumar & Anr. Page 1 of 18
MACT No. 171/12/11 Smt. Prem Lata Vs. Shri Anil Kumar & Anr. Page 1 of 18
(ii) MACT No. 171/12/11
IN THE MATTER OF :
Smt. Prem Lata,
W/o Shri Vikram Singh,
R/o Barrack No. 1,
P.S. Kapashera, New Delhi.
... Claimant
Versus
1. Shri Anil Kumar, (Driver & Owner)
S/o Shri Balwan Singh,
R/o Priya Colony W. No. 1,
H. No. 45, Jhajjar,
P.S. Jhajjar (Haryana).
2. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (Insurer)
D. No. 10, Flat No. 101106,
NI, BMC House,
Connaught Place,
New Delhi - 110 001.
... Respondents
Filed on : 27.07.2011
Reserved : 17.01.2014
Decided on : 20.01.2014
:J U D G M E N T:
1. These two claim petitions are filed under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for awarding compensation to two road traffic accident victims.
2. Whereas Claimant in MACT No. 170/12/11 is Shri MACT No. 170/12/11 Shri Vikram Singh Vs. Shri Anil Kumar & Anr. Page 2 of 18 MACT No. 171/12/11 Smt. Prem Lata Vs. Shri Anil Kumar & Anr. Page 2 of 18 Vikram Singh, Claimant in MACT No. 171/12/11 is his wife, Smt. Prem Lata. At the time of accident, Shri Vikram Singh was driving his motorcycle and his wife Smt. Prem Lata was the pillion rider. Both the claimants suffered injuries in the same accident. As the DrivercumOwner and the Insurer of the offending vehicle in both the claim petitions are same, the Learned Predecessor of this Tribunal vide orders dated 24.09.2011 consolidated these two claim petitions with a direction that the Claim Petition of Shri Vikram Singh i.e. MACT No. 170/12/11 shall be treated as the leading case.
3. Therefore, now both the claim petitions are being disposed of vide a common award.
4. Claimant Shri Vikram Singh in MACT No. 170/12/11 has stated in his claim petition that on 27.10.2010, he was driving his Motorcycle bearing No. DL75BE8861 as he was coming from his Village Subana, Jhajjar to Delhi. When he crossed Village Kasni, the offending vehicle bearing No. HR14D3900 came at a high speed, being driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit his motorcycle resulting in grievous injuries to him and simple injuries to his wife Smt. Prem Lata. As a result of this accident, FIR No. 633/10 was registered at PS Jhajjar, Haryana under Section 279/337/338 of IPC against Respondent No. 1.
5. It is also stated that the claimant was 28 years of age at the time accident. He was a Sub Inspector in Delhi Police and was earning Rs. 29,255/ per month.
6. Claimant has stated that he has spent Rs. 4,34,086/ till 10.05.2011 and claimed a compensation of Rs. 30,00,000/ with interest from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.
MACT No. 170/12/11 Shri Vikram Singh Vs. Shri Anil Kumar & Anr. Page 3 of 18 MACT No. 171/12/11 Smt. Prem Lata Vs. Shri Anil Kumar & Anr. Page 3 of 187. Respondent No. 1 stated in his written statement that in case this Tribunal comes to a conclusion that the claimant is entitled to compensation, it be paid by the Insurance Company because the vehicle was duly insured on the date of accident. So far as factum of accident is concerned, the same was denied stating that the alleged accident never took place as stated in the claim petition.
8. Insurance Company took a preliminary objection that the driver / owner was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident which is a breach of policy and as such liability cannot be fastened on the Insurance Company. Rest of the contents of the claim petition were also denied.
9. To decide the compensation payable to the claimants, following consolidated issues were framed: i. Whether Sh. Vikram Singh and Smt. Prem Lata sustained injuries on 27/10/2010 due to rash or negligent driving of vehicle no. HR14 D3900 by R1. ... OPP ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation if so, what amount and from whom? ... OPP iii. Relief.
10. Claimant examined twelve witnesses in support of his case.
11. First of all, claimant examined one Shri Chhotey Lal, Record Clerk of Orthonova Hospital as PW1 who produced bills, receipts of payments, discharge summary and treatment record of MACT No. 170/12/11 Shri Vikram Singh Vs. Shri Anil Kumar & Anr. Page 4 of 18 MACT No. 171/12/11 Smt. Prem Lata Vs. Shri Anil Kumar & Anr. Page 4 of 18 the claimant which were collectively proved as Ex. PW1/1.
12. A perusal of Ex. PW1/1 shows that the claimant was admitted in that hospital on 02.02.2011 and was discharged on 08.02.2011.
13. Claimant had given a sum of Rs. 90,427/. The final bill and three receipts of Rs. 25,427/, Rs. 45,000/ and Rs. 20,000/ are on record.
14. Discharge Summary, which is part of Ex. PW1/1, shows that the diagnosis was recorded as "Infected NonUnion Supra Condylar Fracture Right Femur".
15. Claimant entered in the witness box as PW2. He stated in his evidence by way of affidavit similar facts visavis accident as were already stated by him in the claim petition. He stated that he has spent Rs. 2,33,617/ for his treatment in Medanta Hospital, Rs. 1,30,540/ for his treatment in Orthonova Hospital, Rs. 2,12,573/ on his medicines and Rs. 1,11,760/ on his conveyance charges. He proved his Identity Card issued by the Delhi Police as Ex. PW2/1, his PAN Card as Ex. PW2/2, Discharge Summary of Medanta Hospital where he was admitted on 27.10.2010 and discharged on 08.11.2010 as a case of "III B Compound Fracture Distal end Femur with Intercondylar Extension (Communited) with Fracture Patella (Communited) Right Side" as Ex. PW2/3, Discharge Summary of Medanta Hospital where he was admitted on second occasion for removal of Fixator as Ex. PW2/4, bills for treatment worth Rs. 2,33,617/ as Ex. PW2/5, bills worth Rs. 1,30,450/ as Ex. PW2/6, bills worth Rs. 2,12,573/ as Ex. PW2/7 and bills for conveyance charges worth Rs. 1,11,760/ as Ex. PW2/8.
MACT No. 170/12/11 Shri Vikram Singh Vs. Shri Anil Kumar & Anr. Page 5 of 18 MACT No. 171/12/11 Smt. Prem Lata Vs. Shri Anil Kumar & Anr. Page 5 of 1816. In crossexamination by counsel for Respondent No. 1, he denied a suggestion that the accident was due to his self negligence.
17. In crossexamination by the counsel for the Insurance Company, he deposed that Medanta Hospital is not on the Panel of Delhi Police and he denied a suggestion that the entire payment for treatment in Orthonova Hospital as well as Medanta Hospital shall be reimbursed to him. Other suggestions contrary to his case were also denied by him.
18. Claimant entered in the witness box second time also when he filed his additional evidence by way of affidavit and proved further bills for treatment as well as conveyance charges worth Rs. 72,843/ as Ex. PW2/9.
19. PW3, ASI Dalbir Singh produced salary slip of the claimant for the month of September, 2012. The accident is of October, 2010. Therefore, evidence of this witness is of no use.
20. PW4, ASI Bhupender Singh produced earned leave record of the claimant as Ex. PW4/A.
21. PW5, HC Pramod Kumar stated that the claimant was on leave from 27.10.2010 joined duty on 23.12.2012.
22. PW6, ASI Ram Niwas produced salary slip of the claimant for the month of October, 2010 and he also filed a Letter / Note stating therein that a medical bill amounting to Rs. 2,01,865/ was submitted by the claimant but it could not be finalised as there were certain objections and the original bill was sent back to the claimant and a reply is still awaited from him.
23. PW7, Dr. Anurag Sharma proved disability MACT No. 170/12/11 Shri Vikram Singh Vs. Shri Anil Kumar & Anr. Page 6 of 18 MACT No. 171/12/11 Smt. Prem Lata Vs. Shri Anil Kumar & Anr. Page 6 of 18 certificate given to the claimant as Ex. PW7/1. As per this, claimant is suffering from Post Traumatic Operated Fracture Lower end Femur with Stiff Knee Joint Right Side with Permanent Physical Disability of 51% in relation to Right Lower Limb.
24. PW8, Record Technician of Medanta Hospital produced Discharge Summary of the claimant as Ex. PW8/1, bill for treatment of the claimant as Ex. PW8/2 and treatment record of the claimant in OPD as Ex. PW8/3.
25. PW9, HC Pramod Kumar proved that the claimant was granted 788 days leave kind due. This order was proved as Ex. PW9/1. The breakup of this leave from 27.10.2010 to 23.11.2010 is 28 days Commuted Leave from 24.11.2010 to 10.04.2011 - 138 days Earned Leave from 11.04.2011 to 22.12.2012 and 622 days Extra Ordinary Leave on Medical Certificate.
26. PW10, ASI Dalbir Singh, Record Clerk from the Office of ACP, DDO produced a statement of recovery which is to be effected from the salary of the claimant due to extraordinary leave availed by him as Ex. PW10/1. As per this, a sum of Rs. 6,65,842/ is to be recovered from the claimant by his department.
27. PW11, ASI Kamlesh produced record of Earned Leave and Commuted Leave of the claimant as Ex. PW11/1.
28. Lastly, PW12, Dr. Hans U. Nagar, Orthopedic Consultant stated that he has given an estimate on 03.06.2013 to the claimant opining that for two stages total knee replacement, claimant will need Rs. 17 Lacs to Rs. 20 Lacs and duration of treatment would be two years. This estimate was proved as Ex. PW12/A. He stated that success rate of total knee replacement is MACT No. 170/12/11 Shri Vikram Singh Vs. Shri Anil Kumar & Anr. Page 7 of 18 MACT No. 171/12/11 Smt. Prem Lata Vs. Shri Anil Kumar & Anr. Page 7 of 18 80% and there are 20% chances that the claimant may face complications. He stated that there is infection in the knee and the procedure may have to be performed two to three times. Therefore, as against a normal knee replacement which costs Rs. 2 Lacs to Rs. 3 Lacs, claimant will require much higher expenses. PW12 stated that first for few months, claimant will be treated for the infection and once he is fit for surgery then only he will be taken for knee replacement. The process may take time. In the meanwhile, cost of operation may also go up. He deposed that the claimant needs more sophisticated joint as his knee is already damaged due to trauma and infection.
29. This witness was crossexamined by the counsel for the Insurance Company at length. During his cross examination, PW12 deposed that his hospital was approved by CGHS; there are other hospitals like Primus Hospital, Modi Hospital etc. who are also on the Panel of CGHS for orthopedic problems; claimant can also get knee replaced from other hospitals which are on the Panel of CGHS and he denied a suggestion that the estimate given by him is exaggerated.
30. No other witness was examined on behalf of the claimant and no witness was examined by any of the respondents.
31. Arguments were addressed by Sh. S.K. Verma, learned Counsel for the claimants and Sh. Shyam Singh, learned counsel for the insurance company.
32. On the basis of pleadings of parties, evidence on record and arguments addressed, issuewise findings are as under: ISSUE NO. 1 MACT No. 170/12/11 Shri Vikram Singh Vs. Shri Anil Kumar & Anr. Page 8 of 18 MACT No. 171/12/11 Smt. Prem Lata Vs. Shri Anil Kumar & Anr. Page 8 of 18
33. Burden of proving this issue is on the claimant.
34. For succeeding in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is for the claimant to prove that the vehicle which caused the accident was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver.
35. This is sine qua non for getting the relief.
36. Claimant himself is an eye witness to the accident. He has stated that while he was driving his motorcycle as per rules and regulations, the offending vehicle being driven in a rash and negligent manner had hit him resulting in grievous injuries to him.
37. Only a bald suggestion was given to the claimant on behalf of driver of the offending vehicle that the accident was due to own negligence of claimant and the said suggestion was denied by the claimant.
38. Respondent No. 1 did not enter in the witness box to prove his innocence.
39. Certified copy of charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer after completion of investigation in the Court of Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhajjar is on record which is also suggestive of negligence of Respondent No. 1 in causing the accident.
40. In view of testimony of claimant and in view of the fact that police has also filed charge sheet against Respondent No. 1 under Section 279 as well as 337 and 338 of IPC, for the purposes of the inquiry being conducted by this Tribunal, it is prima facie proved that the accident was due to negligence of Respondent No. 1. ISSUE NO. 2: MACT No. 170/12/11 Shri Vikram Singh Vs. Shri Anil Kumar & Anr. Page 9 of 18 MACT No. 171/12/11 Smt. Prem Lata Vs. Shri Anil Kumar & Anr. Page 9 of 18
41. In the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr. ACJ 2011 (Vol. I), following principles were laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for determining compensation payable to road traffic accident victims:
(i) The compensation payable to the claimant who is a victim of road accident 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 equatable manner.
(ii) Compensation payable in injury
cases is payable under two heads. They are
pecuniary damages (special damages) and non pecuniary damages. Pecuniary damages have three sub heads which are : (i) expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) (a) Loss of earning ( and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising of loss of earning during the period of treatment and (b) loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability (iii) Future medical expenses. Nonpecuniary damages (General Damage) are (iv) damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of injuries (v) loss of amenities (and /or loss of prospects of marriage) and (vi) loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
(iii) In routine personal injury cases compensation is 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 is granted under any of the heads MACT No. 170/12/11 Shri Vikram Singh Vs. Shri Anil Kumar & Anr. Page 10 of 18 MACT No. 171/12/11 Smt. Prem Lata Vs. Shri Anil Kumar & Anr. Page 10 of 18
(ii) (b), (iii) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospectus of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.
42. As noted earlier, claimant was admitted in Medanta Hospital from 27.10.10 to 08.11.10 as a case of "III B compound fracture distal end femur with inter condylar extension communited with fracture pattela fracture". He had undergone "patellaectomy and external fixator" under general anesthesia on 27.10.10 and "debridement with external fixator adjustment" under spinal anesthesia on 29.10.10. "Blood patch" was also applied for base spinal headache on 03.11.10. At the time of discharge, he was advised physiotherapy exercises.
43. Claimant was again admitted in Medanta Hospital for fixator removal from 11.01.11 to 12.01.11.
44. Claimant was again admitted on 02.02.11 in Orthonova Hospital as a case of infected nonunion spinal condylar fracture right femur and was discharged on 10.02.11.
45. At the end of treatment, claimant was declared permanently physically disabled to an extent of 51% being suffering from post traumatic operated fracture lower end femur with stiff knee joint right side in relation to right lower limb.
46. Counsel for the claimant has relied on Rekha Jain v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2013 (4) CLJ 370 Delhi where compensation for pain and suffering was enhanced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court from Rs. 1 lac to Rs. 9 lacs.
47. A perusal of the judgment of Rekha Jain (supra) MACT No. 170/12/11 Shri Vikram Singh Vs. Shri Anil Kumar & Anr. Page 11 of 18 MACT No. 171/12/11 Smt. Prem Lata Vs. Shri Anil Kumar & Anr. Page 11 of 18 shows that the treatment of the claimant in that case had continued for four years.
48. However, in this case, the treatment of the claimant had taken place from the date of accident 27.10.10 till 10.02.11 when he was discharged after his third admission in Orthonova Hospital.
49. Therefore, in the opinion of this Tribunal, interests of justice would be met if the claimant is awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,000/ for Pain and Suffering.
50. Next question is compensation payable to the claimant for cost of treatment.
51. Claimant was treated in Orthonova Hospital which is on the panel of CGHS. However, claimant has given payments for his treatment in this hospital from his own pocket. The receipts for payments given to the hospital are on record in the form of Ex. PW1/1.
52. Moreover, claimant had claimed reimbursement of a sum of Rs. 2,01,865/ spent by him for his treatment in Medanta Hospital. However, as per Ex. PW6/1, that bill was returned back with certain objections and since then claimant has not resubmitted that bill for reimbursement to his Department.
53. Statement of claimant was also recorded in the court at the time of final arguments where he stated that neither he has received any penny from his Department towards cost of medical treatment nor any of his bill is pending with the Department for the purposes of reimbursement.
54. Therefore, the entire compensation for the cost of MACT No. 170/12/11 Shri Vikram Singh Vs. Shri Anil Kumar & Anr. Page 12 of 18 MACT No. 171/12/11 Smt. Prem Lata Vs. Shri Anil Kumar & Anr. Page 12 of 18 treatment is to be given to the claimant by the respondents. Medical bills worth Rs. 6,36,383/ are on record.
55. As a result, claimant is awarded a compensation of Rs. 6,36,383/ which is round of to Rs. 6,40,000/ towards Cost of Treatment.
56. Claimant had remained on leave for 788 days. His salary at the time of accident was Rs. 29,255/ per day. From this salary, Transport Allowance Rs. 2,320/ and Washing Allowance Rs. 60/ are to be deducted for calculating financial loss to the claimant due to medical leave availed by him.
57. Therefore, for the purposes of assessing compensation for loss of wages, income of the claimant would be treated as Rs. 26,875/ per month or Rs. 895.83 per day.
58. Therefore, loss of wages for 788 days would be Rs. 7,05,916/.
59. Therefore, claimant is awarded a compensation of Rs. 7,05,916/ which is round of to Rs. 7,05,000/ for Loss of Wages due to leave availed for his medical treatment.
60. Considering three admissions of the claimant in the hospitals on three different occasions, claimant would have needed the help of an attendant.
61. Even if services of an attendant are rendered by family members, even then compensation is to be given to the claimant for such services. For this reliance can be placed on Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Lalita: AIR 1981 Delhi 558.
62. Therefore, on a lump sum basis, claimant is MACT No. 170/12/11 Shri Vikram Singh Vs. Shri Anil Kumar & Anr. Page 13 of 18 MACT No. 171/12/11 Smt. Prem Lata Vs. Shri Anil Kumar & Anr. Page 13 of 18 awarded a compensation of Rs. 30,000/ for Attendant's Charges.
63. Claimant had suffered grievous injuries and he could not have gone to the doctors for OPD consultations on his own. He was admitted in hospitals on three different occasions. He has attended OPDs of attending doctors on a number of days. Obviously, he would have spent a lot of money on conveyance charges. Bills worth Rs. 1,28,218/ are on record for conveyance charges. However, in absence of evidence of transporters who provided taxi services, claimant is awarded a compensation of Rs. 40,000/ for Conveyance Charges.
64. Additionally, claimant is also awarded a compensation of Rs. 25,000/ for Special Diet.
65. Since claimant is advised physiotherapy, he is also awarded a compensation of Rs. 25,000/ on a lump sum basis for Physiotherapy Charges.
66. Next question is expenses payable to the claimant for treatment in future.
67. As per OPD Card of Safdarjang Hospital dated 02.07.13, the treating doctor has noted that in future, the claimant may need total knee replacement.
68. Claimant was treated under Dr. Hans U. Nagar, Orthopedic Consultant, Orthonova Hospital.
69. This doctor is examined as PW12 who has stated that claimant will need a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to Rs. 20 lacs for total knee replacement which will be in two stages and duration of the treatment would be nearly two years.
MACT No. 170/12/11 Shri Vikram Singh Vs. Shri Anil Kumar & Anr. Page 14 of 18 MACT No. 171/12/11 Smt. Prem Lata Vs. Shri Anil Kumar & Anr. Page 14 of 1870. This estimate is Ex. PW12/A.
71. PW12 has stated that since there is infection in the knee, the procedure may have to be performed 2 to 3 times and that is why as against a normal knee replacement which costs Rs. 2 to 3 lacs, claimant will need much higher amount in his case. He stated that for first few months, claimant will be treated for the infection and once he is fit for surgery only then he will be taken for knee replacement. He has deposed that the process will take time and in the meanwhile cost of operation will also go up. He further stated that the knee of claimant is already damaged due to trauma and infection, therefore, he needs more sophisticated joint.
72. Learned Counsel for the insurance company has vehemently opposed grant of any compensation in favour of claimant for future treatment.
73. His argument is that there are several reputed hospitals which are on the panel of Delhi Police and claimant should approach one of those hospitals for total knee replacement because there the cost of treatment will be borne by his Department i.e. Delhi Police.
74. The argument of learned Counsel for insurance company is not acceptable because it is the choice of a claimant to take treatment from a doctor or hospital of his choice. Since claimant was treated at Orthonova Hospital under Dr. Hans U. Nagar, nothing unusual can be inferred if he opts to get his total knee replacement by the said doctor. In the earlier parts of this award, it is already noted that the claimant has faced difficulties in taking reimbursements of medical bills from his Department. His MACT No. 170/12/11 Shri Vikram Singh Vs. Shri Anil Kumar & Anr. Page 15 of 18 MACT No. 171/12/11 Smt. Prem Lata Vs. Shri Anil Kumar & Anr. Page 15 of 18 bill for Rs. 2 lacs approximately incurred on treatment in Medanta Hospital was not passed by the Department and several clarifications were sought constraining the claimant not to pursue with his Department for reimbursement of that bill but to claim the said bill from present respondents.
75. A victim of a road traffic accident cannot be compelled to go to a Government Hospital for treatment or only to panel hospitals and take reimbursements from his employer.
76. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in case claimant claims compensation for future treatment in present proceedings than to hazard a risk of claiming the said amount from his Department and face a number of queries.
77. It is to be noted that learned Counsel for insurance company has not disputed or argued that the claimant does not need expenses for his future treatment for total knee replacement.
78. However, claim of Rs. 17 lacs to Rs. 20 lacs for total knee replacement appears to be on the higher side. It is the own evidence of PW12 that in a normal case, total knee replacement costs Rs. 2 to 3 lacs. Since claimant's knee is in a bad condition due to trauma and infection, it appears that a compensation of Rs. 5 lacs shall be a just compensation for that purpose. Therefore, claimant is awarded a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/ for Total Knee Replacement.
79. Claimant has stated that he had just concluded Induction Course for Sub Inspector in Delhi Police when he suffered with this accident and suffered permanent disability in relation to right lower limb to an extent of 51%.
80. Since claimant is awarded a compensation of Rs. 5 MACT No. 170/12/11 Shri Vikram Singh Vs. Shri Anil Kumar & Anr. Page 16 of 18 MACT No. 171/12/11 Smt. Prem Lata Vs. Shri Anil Kumar & Anr. Page 16 of 18 lacs for treatment in future for total knee replacement after which, in the opinion of PW12, claimant has 80% success chances, this Tribunal hopes that the operation will be successful in future and claimant will not suffer any prejudice because of permanent disability with which he is suffering at present.
81. However, considering that he is in Executive Wing of the Police where 100% fitness is required, there is a possibility that promotional avenues of the claimant to higher posts of Inspector or ACP in future may be adversely effected. Therefore, claimant is awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/ for prejudice that he may suffer in future on account of physical disability in his promotional avenues.
82. Lastly, claimant is also awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/ for Loss of Amenities and Pleasures of Life.
83. Therefore, total compensation payable to the claimant would be Rs. 23,65,000/ which will be paid with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of this Claim Petition which is 12.05.11 till its realization.
84. There is no defence of the insurance company.
85. Therefore, insurance company shall deposit the compensation within 30 days under intimation to the claimant as well as to the counsel for the claimant by registered post. In case even after passing of 90 days the insurance company fails to deposit this compensation, it shall be recovered by attaching its bank account with a cost of Rs. 5,000/ as per directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kashmere Lal & Ors., 2007 ACJ 688.
MACT No. 170/12/11 Shri Vikram Singh Vs. Shri Anil Kumar & Anr. Page 17 of 18 MACT No. 171/12/11 Smt. Prem Lata Vs. Shri Anil Kumar & Anr. Page 17 of 1886. Claimant is a Sub Inspector in Delhi Police. There is no apprehension of his compensation being dissipated or exploited. Therefore, the entire compensation shall be released in his favour without any precondition of FDRs.
87. Next, compensation payable to Smt. Premlata, claimant in Claim Petition No. 171/12/11 is taken up for consideration.
88. This claimant has suffered simple injuries and has spent Rs. 2,120/ on her treatment. Therefore, on a lump sum basis, she is awarded a compensation of Rs. 10,000/ which will be paid with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of this Claim Petition which is 27.07.11 till its realization.
89. Ahlmad will put up these files with a report from the Nazir regarding deposit of compensation again on 25.04.2014.
90. Copy of this order be given dasti to all the parties.
91. File be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court.
On the 20th day of January, 2014 (ARUN BHARDWAJ) PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNALII DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
MACT No. 170/12/11 Shri Vikram Singh Vs. Shri Anil Kumar & Anr. Page 18 of 18 MACT No. 171/12/11 Smt. Prem Lata Vs. Shri Anil Kumar & Anr. Page 18 of 18