Delhi District Court
Ganga Devi vs Rajesh Kumar on 23 December, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS.MAYURI SINGH
P.O : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
EAST DISTRICT : KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
MACP No. 674/2019
Unique Case I.D. No. DLET010062412019
Ganga Devi (injured),
W/o Sh. Sher Singh,
R/o C81, Janta Garden, Pandav Nagar,
Opposite Bapu Nature Cure Hospital,
Patparganj,Delhi ...................Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Kajod Mal
R/o Village Rewasa, Tehsil Nadoti,
PS Garh mora, District Karauli, Rajasthan
2. Delhi Transport Corporation (Owner)
Ambedkar Nagar, Depot, New Delhi
3. United India Insurance Company Ltd.(Insurer)
E85, Himalya House K.G.,
Connaught Place, New Delhi ..........Respondents
Date of institution : 23.07.2019 Final arguments heard : 19.07.2023 & 19.12.2023 Date of Award : 23.12.2023
____________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 674/19; Ganga Devi Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 1 of 23 AWARD
1. By this award, claim petition filed by petitioner under section 166 & 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, based on Detailed Accident Report (DAR) would be decided.
2. The important facts of the case are that the Petitioner Ganga Devi suffered grievous injuries on account of a motor vehicular accident which happened on 19.02.2019 at about 02:00 p.m. near footover bridge, Samaspur Bus stand, Pandav Nagar, Delhi. In respect of this accident, an FIR No.0068/15, u/s 279/337 IPC was registered at PS Pandav Nagar, Delhi. As per the FIR, the petitioner/injured was going to Madangir from her house and she was waiting at the bus stand Samaspur Village, Delhi and when she was trying to board the bus, all of a sudden, the driver of the bus bearing registration No. DL1PC7150 (in short "offending vehicle"), rashly and negligently at a very high speed drove the bus and due to this petitioner got disbalanced and fell down on road and her both legs were crushed under the rear wheels of the bus. Thereafter, NHAI Van came and took her to the LBS Hospital. During investigation, it was found that the accident was caused by the said offending bus, being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and the said offending bus is owned by respondent No.2.
____________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 674/19; Ganga Devi Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 2 of 23
3. After service of notice of petition, all the three respondents marked appearance. Respondent No.1 and 2 have filed their joint written statement stating therein that the accident occurred due to the fault of petitioner herself and respondent No. 1 / driver was neither rash nor negligent and they have been falsely implicated in the present matter. It is further submitted that driver safely boarded the passengers and closed the door and started the bus for its destination in the meantime one old lady was trying to catch the running bus and in this process, she fell down on road and received injuries. Respondent no.3/insurer had given legal offer to the petitioner which was not acceptable to the petitioner.
4. On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed on 20.05.2022:
(i). Whether petitioner Ganga Devi suffered injuries in a road side accident on 19.02.2019 at about 2.00 pm, near Samaspur Bus Stand, Pandav Nagar, Delhi, within jurisdiction of PS Pandav Nagar, due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL1PC7150 (DTC bus), driven by respondent No.1 / Rajesh Kumar? (OPP)
(ii). Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation on account of said injuries and if yes, to what extent and from whom? (OPP)
(iii). Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the award amount, if so, at what rate and for which period? (OPP) ____________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 674/19; Ganga Devi Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 3 of 23
(iv) Relief.
5. In order to establish her claim, petitioner examined five witnesses.
5.1 PW1, petitioner herself entered into witness box and on the strength of affidavit Ex.PW1/A deposed regarding manner of accident and her treatment and relied upon the documents i.e. DAR, treatment record, original medical bills, attendant charges receipt, photographs of injuries, Aadhar Card and PAN card of the injured, disability certificate Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/7 and mark A and mark B. 5.2 PW2, Sh. Vinod Kumar, Record Incharge, Ram Lal Kundan Lal Orthopedic Hospital, Pandav Nagar, Patparganj, Delhi has produced the treatment record and final bill of petitioner Ganga Devi during her hospitalization from 19.02.2019 to 28.02.2019 amounting to Rs.1,50,000/ Ex. PW2/2. He has also produced the treatment record and final bill of the petitioner of her hospitalization for the period from 28.02.2019 to 07.03.2019 amounting to Rs.67,350/ (Ex. PW2/3).
5.3 PW3/ Irfan Ali, Medical Record Officer, Jeevan Anmol Hospital, Mayur Vihar Phase1, Delhi, produced the treatment record ____________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 674/19; Ganga Devi Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 4 of 23 and final bill of petitioner for the period of her hospitalization from 06.04.2019 to 07.04.2019 amounting to Rs.9010/ Ex. PW3/1.
5.4 PW4/Dr. Hemant Sharma, Specialist (Ortho), Dr. Hedgewar Hospital, Delhi proved the disability certificate Ex.PW1/6 showing that the petitioner has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 74% in relation to both lower limbs. He has also proved the assessment sheet Ex.PW4/1.
5.5 PW5/Sh. Naveen Kumar, Prosthetist & Orthotist, Otto Bock Health Care India Pvt. Ltd, 19, South Patel Nagar, Near Patel Nagar Metro Station, Opposite Pillar No. 194, New Delhi has produced the attested copy of record / bill for the cost of artificial limb and accessories Ex. PW5/2.
6. Respondent side has not led any evidence in their defence.
7. I have heard Ms. Pooja Goel, Ld. counsel for petitioner; Sh. Shiv Kumar, Ld. Counsel for R1 and R2 and Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Ld. counsel for respondent no. 3/ insurer. Record of the case has also been perused.
____________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 674/19; Ganga Devi Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 5 of 23 ISSUE NO.1 :
8. In 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 tested on the touchstone of principle of preponderance of probabilities.
9. In order to prove her case, the petitioner herself stepped into witness box as PW1. She deposed that on 19.02.2019 at about 2:00 p.m., she was going to Madangir from her house and she was waiting at the bus stand, Samaspur Village for the bus and when the bus bearing registration No. DL1PC7150 (red colour DTC bus) arrived and while she was boarding the bus, and had already kept her feet on the boarding platform, the driver started the bus without looking over the passengers boarding and drove the bus at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the petitioner got disbalanced and fell down on the road. Both of her legs were crushed under rear wheels of the offending bus.
9.1 Ld. Counsel for petitioner submitted that negligence on the part of the driver of the DTC bus is evident and proved on record. During her crossexamination, the petitioner has denied the suggestion that she was trying to board running bus from its front gate and explained that at her age, she cannot board a running bus.
____________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 674/19; Ganga Devi Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 6 of 23 She also denied that she was boarding the bus from its front gate. Even otherwise, it is immaterial if petitioner was boarding the bus from front gate and women and children can board the bus from front gate and it does not in itself show any contributory negligence, even if it is accepted for the sake of arguments. Otherwise, it is not proved on record that petitioner was trying to board the bus from front gate and no evidence was led by respondents in this regard. Petitioner herself has denied this when given a suggestion in this regard.
10. Further, it is not disputed that respondent No.1 was chargesheeted in the aforesaid criminal case for causing the accident by driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Thus, primafacie, it is clear that respondent No.1 was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at the time of accident.
11. The MLC of the petitioner filed alongwith DAR Ex.PW1/1 and treatment papers Ex.PW1/2 make it clear that petitioner suffered grievous injuries in the accident.
12. In view of the above, it stands proved that petitioner sustained grievous injury due to rash and negligent driving of ____________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 674/19; Ganga Devi Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 7 of 23 offending vehicle by respondent no.1. Thus, issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 213. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be pittance.
MEDICAL EXPENSES:
14. The petitioner has placed on record all her medical bills which are part of document Ex. PW1/3 and Ex. PW1/4, for a total amount of Rs.4,19,561/. All the medical bills and documents are in original and found in order. It is observed that no challenge was made by the insurer in respect of any of the bills. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 4,19,561/ is granted to the petitioner under this head. In the abovesaid documents, petitioner has also filed attendant bills (part of Ex PW1/4) which is not being considered under this head as being dealt with under separate head. Further, she has filed some 'receipts' of advance payments which are already part of final bills at time of discharge from hospitals and added in abovementioned total ____________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 674/19; Ganga Devi Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 8 of 23 amount and hence, cannot be counted in double. Further, Bill of MLP (Modular leg prosthesis) at page no. 10 of document Ex. PW 1/3 is being discussed separately in succeeding paragraph as a separate head and hence, not counted under this head. Further, bill at page no.15 is unsigned and moreover, same is crossmarked in pen by two parallel lines across it and hence not being considered under this head. Bill receipt no. 703289 dated 07.03.2019 at page no. 13 of Ex. PW1/3 is ambulance bill and not being considered under this head and being considered under head of Conveyance separately.
ARTIFICIAL LIMB:
15. Learned counsel for petitioner has argued that petitioner has suffered amputation of left leg below knee due to injuries suffered by her in the road accident and she will require assistance of an artificial limb for the rest of her life. In this regard, petitioner also examined Sh. Naveen Kumar/PW5, Prosthetist & Orthotist, Otto Bock Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd, 19, South Patel Nagar, Near Patel Nagar Metro Station, opposite pillar no. 194, New Delhi to prove the cost of artificial limb. The said witness testified that the cost of the artificial limb as purchased by the petitioner is Rs.1,30,000/. (Same bill is part of document Ex PW1/3 and also Document Ex. PW5/2). PW5 was crossexamined by Ld. counsel for Insurance Company ____________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 674/19; Ganga Devi Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 9 of 23 but nothing material has comeforth in the crossexamination. The respondents did not lead any evidence to prove that the cost of the artificial limb as stated by PW5 was excessive or on the higher side as compared to the one available in the open market. Petitioner has proved on record the bill regarding accessory and maintenance cost of artificial limb amounting to Rs. 36,750/ (Ex.PW1/7 and also part of Ex.PW5/2). PW5 did not specify the life of the artificial limb and no warranty period in the bill is mentioned. PW4 Dr. Hemant Sharma deposed that usually artificial limb is replaced in 04 years but his testimony does not go to establish the life of the artificial limb bought by the petitioner and only PW5 or his company could have given evidence in this regard. PW5 deposed that the prosthesis needs the maintenance cost for the consumable items per year approximately Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 30000/ in the present case. However, the bills of accessories and the bill of artificial limb do not provide any period of warranty. PW5 has not satisfactorily explained the maintenance charges and no estimate document in this regard was proved on record. Hence, it is assumed that artificial limb has life span of about 10 years if the petitioner uses the said limb properly and that the annual maintenance cost of the said limb is about Rs.10,000/ to Rs.15,000/.
____________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 674/19; Ganga Devi Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 10 of 23
16. Petitioner is stated to have already incurred an expense of Rs. 1,66,750/ over artificial limb and accessories/maintenance. Accordingly, the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. 1,66,750/ under this head, which shall be directly paid/released to the petitioner. Further, keeping in mind that during her life time she may require one more set of artificial limb together with annual maintenance cost, as she was already 74 years of age at the time of her accident, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ is awarded towards maintenance as lump sum expenses and further, an amount of Rs. 1,30,000/ is also awarded to her towards future expenses over artificial limb. However, the said amount of Rs. 1,30,000/ shall not be released directly to the petitioner and same shall be kept in form of FDR to be released only upon showing the medical advise / purchase bills / treatment documents for the purpose of seeking withdrawal of the amount put in FDR in compliance of judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court titled as Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Neha & Ors. MAC App No. 600/12, dated 08.03.2016.
PAIN AND SUFFERING:
17. The treatment record / medical documents Ex. PW1/2 and disability certificate Ex. PW1/6 placed on record by the petitioner, together with testimonies of PWs, show that the petitioner suffered ____________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 674/19; Ganga Devi Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 11 of 23 from grievous injuries due to the accident. Further, it is mentioned that immediately after the accident, the petitioner suffered below knee amputation of left leg and amputation of all toes of right leg. She was taken to LBS Hospital after accident on 19.02.2019 and on the same day, she was admitted to R.K. Hospital and discharged on 28.02.2019. She was also admitted in R.K. Hospital on 28.02.2019 and discharged on 07.03.2019 and further admitted in Jai Prakash Trauma Centre on 15.03.2019 and discharged on 01.04.2019. She was admitted in Jeevan Anmol Hospital on 06.0.2019 and discharged on 07.04.2019. On the same day, she was admitted in Jai Prakash Hospital and discharged on 15.04.2019 She was admitted on Jai Prakash Hospital on 08.05.2019 and discharged on 18.05.2019 after treatment and surgeries. Further, it has also come on record that petitioner suffered 74% permanent disability in relation to both lower limbs and disability certificate Ex.PW1/6 was also issued to this effect. In view of this, it is clear the petitioner must have remained under immense pain and suffering for a long time during her treatment. In view of above, this court finds it appropriate to award the petitioner Rs.75,000/ as compensation under this head.
____________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 674/19; Ganga Devi Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 12 of 23 LOSS OF INCOME (DURING TREATMENT) AND FUTURE LOSS OF INCOME:
18. Petitioner was about 74 years of age at the time of accident. She is an old lady, post the age of retirement and stated to have never worked/ never been employed and has been a homemaker. Ld. Counsel for petitioner submitted that assuming the life span of a human as 100 years, petitioner may be given compensation for loss of income to her, both during treatment and towards future loss of income. However, I do not find force in such a submission. There is an age of retirement provided by the government for those serving the government in jobs provided by State. While a person may choose to work post retirement as well, there can be no assumption or presumption regarding his work and income at the fag end of his life, particularly beyond the average life expectancy and concrete evidence, in my considered view, should be led in this regard. Petitioner was not working or contributing to the income of her family. She was of such an age even at the time of her accident that she can very well be considered as dependent on her children for her look after under law and in case of neglect, could even take recourse to Senior Citizen Act.
____________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 674/19; Ganga Devi Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 13 of 23
19. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the Case titled as Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Trasnport Corporation and Others, CIVIL APPEAL NO 3483 OF 2008, (Arising out of SLP [C] No.8648 of 2007) held that :
"19. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Charlie [2005 (10) SCC 720], this Court noticed that in respect of claims under section 166 of the MV Act, the highest multiplier applicable was 18 and that the said multiplier should be applied to the age group of 21 to 25 years (commencement of normal productive years) and the lowest multiplier would be in respect of persons in the age group of 60 to 70 years (normal retiring age).
This was reiterated in TN State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. vs. Rajapriya [2005 (6) SCC 236] and UP State Road Transport Corporation vs. Krishna Bala [2006 (6) SCC 249]....
20. Tribunals/courts adopt and apply different operative multipliers. Some follow the multiplier with reference to Susamma Thomas (set out in column 2 of the table above); some follow the multiplier with reference to Trilok Chandra, (set out in column 3 of the table above); some follow the multiplier with reference to Charlie (Set out in column (4) of the Table above); many follow the multiplier given in second column of the Table in the Second Schedule of MV Act (extracted in column 5 of the table above); and some follow the multiplier actually adopted in the Second Schedule while calculating the quantum of compensation (set out in column 6 of the table above). For example if the deceased is aged 38 years, the multiplier would be 12 as per Susamma Thomas, 14 as per Trilok Chandra, 15 as per Charlie, or 16 as per the multiplier given in column (2) of the Second schedule to the MV Act or 15 as per the multiplier actually adopted in the second Schedule to MV Act. Some Tribunals, as in this case, apply the multiplier ____________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 674/19; Ganga Devi Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 14 of 23 of 22 by taking the balance years of service with reference to the retiring age. It is necessary to avoid this kind of inconsistency. We are concerned with cases falling under section 166 and not under section 163A of MV Act. In cases falling under section 166 of the MV Act, Davies method is applicable.
21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M17 for 26 to 30 years, M16 for 31 to 35 years, M15 for 36 to 40 years, M14 for 41 to 45 years, and M13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M11 for 51 to 55 years, M9 for 56 to 60 years, M7 for 61 to 65 years and M5 for 66 to 70 years."
20. The abovestated judgment was in context of a fatal injury case but the multiplier applied therein can be conveniently used in cases of injury in appropriate cases to calculate future loss of income by applying suitable multiplier. In the case at hand, age of the petitioner does not even fall between the bracket of 6670 years and is well past the same. In the case at hand, petitioner was 74 years old and it is generally considered harsh for a man or woman of such an age to be expected to make both ends meet through their sweat and labour or even to prove why he/she is not working. Physical and mental faculties of a human are expected to diminish ____________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 674/19; Ganga Devi Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 15 of 23 with age and irrespective of how fit a person may be at the end of his professional career, there is an age of retirement provided. A person in job gracefully retires and goes about pursuing his hobbies or just relaxes in his second innings. He may choose to work too but once retirement and postretirement assignment ends, his pensionary benefits/retirement, as applicable, remain intact. This is because, at the end of a professional career, lifelong efforts are rewarded and future security is provided to a government servant, irrespective of whether he is active and earning through various means, including his own physical or mental labour at that age. This is because, government recognizes that there is an age at which mental and physical faculties diminish or are about to deteriorate. In the case at hand, victim lady was about 74 years old at the time of accident and is presently more than 78 years old. She is a non working individual. She claims future benefits and loss of earning equating herself as a homemaker, on ground that she took care of her children and grandchildren. She could be overseeing and monitoring the upkeep of her grandchildren only if she is living in a joint family set up. There is no evidence led in this regard. There is no evidence led either to suggest that petitioner is cooking for a family or doing other household chores or that her children at this age, render absolutely no assistance to her. She is completely mum whether she is in receipt of any old age or other pension. Status of ____________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 674/19; Ganga Devi Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 16 of 23 her husband is not known either. This is quite an absurd argument that her future prospects should be calculated assuming her age to be 100 years old, in a Country where average life expectancy is 70 years and retirement age of a working individual is on an average 6065 years. It is an insult to consider the contribution of a 24x7 homemaker as 'nil ' in terms of her working capacity. Likewise, it would be a cruel joke played upon a working individual (be it a male or female, who might as well be doubling up as a homemaker in nonworking hours) where income and earning capacity of a homemaker, be a male or female, is considered beyond the normal age of retirement. A man or woman who is actually earning, has a social life and contribution to society beyond the age of 70, can not be equated with a human his age, who is leading a retired life. Likewise, a young woman who chooses to sit at home and raise her children and support her husband, can not be equated with an old lady aged 74, whose children are no longer her responsibility and cannot lay such claim to assisting the household and liquidating her contribution in terms of money. Petitioner has not disclosed what work she was doing for the family, which she took upon herself as a wife and mother, which was compromised due to injuries suffered by her. Her grand children are not her responsibility to raise and tend to. There is no evidence led to show that any of her children was invalid and dependent on her for any support. Age, occupation and ____________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 674/19; Ganga Devi Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 17 of 23 number of grandchildren and children is not proved on record. Hence, considering the age of Petitioner and her well being post retirement age and also considering that there is no evidence to show that she was working as a homemaker in the immediate family (her husband and children) at that age and had no support from her family, I am of the considered view that she is not entitled to any claim towards loss of income as there was none. Ld. Counsel for petitioner relied upon judgment titled as The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Gopinathan & Ors., MACA No. 4653/2019. However, in my considered view, the same is not applicable to the fact and circumstances of this case.
21. Issue of future prospect 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 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 selfemployed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the ____________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 674/19; Ganga Devi Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 18 of 23 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."
22. The petitioner is a home maker. In view of the above said judgment, the injured who was 74 years of age and not working, is not entitled for benefit of future prospects.
CONVEYANCE, ATTENDANT & SPECIAL DIET CHARGES:
23. Though no evidence has come on record to prove the expenses incurred by the petitioner on the conveyance (apart from one ambulance Bill receipt no. 703289 dated 07.03.2019 at page no. 13 of Ex. PW1/3 amounting to Rs. 500/ ) however, considering that the petitioner remained hospitalized in different Hospitals at different times and was under treatment over a considerable period of time, an inference can be drawn that substantial amount must have been incurred by the family members of petitioner over conveyance and further considering nature of injuries and the age of the petitioner, special diet must have been required for her recovery. Thus, the ____________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 674/19; Ganga Devi Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 19 of 23 petitioner is granted a sum of Rs.10,000/ towards conveyance and Rs.15,000/ towards special diet.
24. Petitioner has filed on record original receipts of attendant/maid charges amounting to Rs.50,000/(Part of Ex.PW1/4). Even though, no corresponding proof of payment by way of bank statements has been filed and proved on record, there is no serious dispute to these bills. In view of the same, a sum of Rs. 50,000/ is awarded to petitioner as attendant charges.
25. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 75,000/ is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
LOSS OF AMENITIES :
26. Considering the disability of the petitioner, there remains no doubt that she will not be able to enjoy the basic amenities to the fullest throughout her life. Though, no specific evidence has been led on this aspect, however, considering the permanent disability of 74% in respect of lower limbs, this court is of the view that said consequences of the accident would definitely create hindrance in enjoying basic amenities of life. It is quite unfortunate that petitioner had to suffer from amputation of limb at such an age when physical faculties already get weak due to age and humans look for and ____________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 674/19; Ganga Devi Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 20 of 23 deserve tender loving care of family. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/ is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
DISFIGURATION :
27. Petitioner suffered from amputation of left lower limb and severance of all toes of right leg and hence, she suffered from disfigurement. Hence, a sum of Rs. 1,000,00/ is awarded under this head.
28. Thus, the compensation awarded to the petitioner is summarized as under: Sl. No. Head of compensation Amount
1. Medical Expenses Rs. 4,19,561/
2. Pain & Suffering Rs. 75,000/ Conveyance, Attendant and Rs. 75,000/
4.
Special Diet expenses
Loss of Amenities Rs. 4,00,000/
5.
Disfiguration Rs.1,00,000/
6.
Artificial Rs. 3,96,750/
7. Limb/maintenance/accessor
y
TOTAL Rs. / 14,66,311/
(rounded off
Rs.14,67,000/)
____________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 674/19; Ganga Devi Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 21 of 23
29. Vide order dt. 23.10.2020, an interim award for a sum of Rs. 25,000/ was passed in favour of the petitioner under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The said sum of money has to be adjusted in the total compensation awarded by the Court and hence, the total award amount shall be Rs.14,42,000/ (Rs.14,67,000 - Rs.25,000/).
LIABILITY
30. Since the offending vehicle was insured at the time of accident and the respondent No.3 is the Insurer. Thus, the respondents No.3 is liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner.
ISSUE No. 4 :
31. The petitioner has conducted the proceedings in his case diligently. Therefore, he is entitled for interest @ 7.5% per annum on the aforesaid award amount from the date of filing of the petition till date of realization.
RELIEF:
32. In view of the findings on said issues, this Tribunal awards a total compensation of Rs. 14,42,000/ (Rs. Fourteen Lakhs Forty Two Thousand Only) alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum w.e.f.
____________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 674/19; Ganga Devi Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 22 of 23 date of filing of the petition till the date of its realization, in favour of petitioner and against the respondent no. 3 / United India Insurance Company and same is required to be deposited with this Tribunal within 30 days.
Announced in the open (Mayuri Singh) Court on 23.12.2023 Presiding OfficerMACT (East) (Total 23 pages) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
____________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 674/19; Ganga Devi Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 23 of 23