Delhi District Court
Som Dutt (I)(Fir 459/2022/Lahori Gate) vs Bhupender(United India Ins Comp) on 21 August, 2024
DLCT010169352022
Presented on : 12-12-2022
Registered on : 16-12-2022
Decided on : 21-08-2024
Duration : 01 Year 08 Months
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF PRESIDING OFFICER-MACT-02,
(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED OVER BY DR. PANKAJ SHARMA
MACT NO. 967/22
SOMDUTT SHARMA
S/o Sh. Indradutt Sharma
R/o Mohalla Dwarka Puri,
P.S. Gandhi Park,
Distt. Aligarh, U.P.-202001. .......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. BHOOPENDER KUMAR
S/o Sh. Santosh Kumar
R/o Village Rawat, Teh. Rath
Distt. Hamirpur, UP-210428. (Driver)
2. DTC
Office at:
CW-1 Kingsway Campt,
BBM Depot, Delhi. (Owner)
3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
Regd. Office at:-
E-85,Himayala House, K.G. Marg,
Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. (Insurer).
.....Respondents
MACT No. 967/22 Somdutt Sharma Vs. Bhoopender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 1/26
PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.08.21 11:48:17 +0530
The particulars as per Form-XVII, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) are as under:-
1. Date of the accident 24/08/22
2. Date of filing of Form-I - First Accident N.A. Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the victim(s) N.A.
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Driver N.A.
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Owner N.A.
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim Accident N.A. Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form-VIB N.A. from the Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - Detailed Accident 16/12/22 Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer Not by the Insurance Company mentioned
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the No Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No the part of the Designated officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the petitioner(s) to the offer N.A. of the Insurance Company.
MACT No. 967/22 Somdutt Sharma Vs. Bhoopender Kumar & Ors. PageDigitally No. 2/26 signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.21 11:48:36 +0530
14. Date of the award 21/08/24
15. Whether the petitioner (s) was/were directed to Yes open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) was/were 27/05/24 directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) produced the 09/08/24 passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of the Mohalla Claimant(s). Dwarka Puri, P.S. Gandhi Park, Distt.
Aligarh, U.P.-
202001
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank Yes account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the Yes time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
MACT No. 967/22 Somdutt Sharma Vs. Bhoopender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 3/26PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA 11:48:42 +0530 Date: 2024.08.21 AWARD/JUDGMENT FACTUAL POSITION AND PLEADINGS
1. This DAR was filed on 16/12/2022 by the Investigating Officer in the presence of the parties. The DAR is related to a motor vehicular accident dated 24/08/2022 in which one Sh.Somdutt Sharma S/o Sh. Indradutt Sharma (hereinafter referred to as "petitioner") sustained grievous injuries. Subsequent to the filing of said DAR, the present petition was filed on 16/08/2023 U/s 166 r/w Section 140 of M.V. Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- in respect of injuries sustained by petitioner in a road traffic accident which took place on 24/08/2022 at about 07.00 AM at a spot on divider near toward Old Delhi Railway Station, to Pilli Kothi, Delhi falling within the jurisdiction of PS Lahori Gate. As per this petition, at the relevant time and place, the petitioner was standing at divider, a green DTC bus bearing registration no. DL-1PC-9585 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") which was being driven by its driver at high speed as well as in a rash and negligent manner hit and crushed the left leg of the petitioner. It is further stated that immediately thereafter the petitioner was removed to LNJP Hospital by CATS Ambulance and the left leg of the petitioner below knee was amputated. It is further stated that the petitioner has spent more than Rs.2 Lakhs on his treatment. An FIR No. 459/22 PS Lahori Gate U/s 279/338 IPC was registered by the police. As per petition, the petitioner was 36 years old at the time of accident and was a MACT No. 967/22 Somdutt Sharma Vs. Bhoopender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 4/26 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.21 11:48:49 +0530 labourer and was earning Rs. 30,000/ per month approximately. Petitioner seeks compensation to the tune of Rs. 50 Lakhs on account of the injuries sustained by him in the aforementioned vehicular motor accident. R-1 is the driver of the offending vehicle, R-2 is the owner of the offending vehicle and R-3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Respondents were directed to file their written statements.
2. Separate written statements were filed by R-1 & R-2 in which they declined the contents of petition. They further claimed that at the relevant time the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by R-3/ insurance company in favour of R-2 and therefore, the liability, if any, is to be discharged by R-3/ Insurance Company only.
3. R-3/Insurance Company filed a reply in which it denied the contents of petition. However, it is admitted by R-3/ Insurance Company that at the relevant time the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by itself in favour of R-2.
ISSUES
4. Vide order dated 24/01/2024, the following issues were framed by this Tribunal :-
1. Whether the petitioner Som Dutt suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 24.08.2022 at about 07.00 AM involving vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1PC-9585 driven by the Respondent No.1 rashly and negligently and owned by the respondent no. 1, MACT No. 967/22 Somdutt Sharma Vs. Bhoopender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 5/26 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.21 11:48:55 +0530 owned by the Respondent No. 2 and insured with the respondent no. 3? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom
3. Relief.
EVIDENCE
5. The petitioner examined himself as PW-1 in support of his claim. The petitioner filed affidavit Ex. X wherein he described the occurrence of incident in line with the facts mentioned in Para 1 of this award. He deposed that he sustained grievous injuries at the relevant time. He further deposed that at the relevant time, he was 25 years old and was a labourer and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month approximately and due to injuries he has not been able to do his work till date due to the said accident and he has sustained permanent disability to the extent of 70% with respect to his Left Lower Limb. Petitioner has relied upon the following documents viz:-
"Ex. PW-1/ is copy of Aadhar Card of PW-1; Ex.PW-1/2 (Colly) is copy of High School Passing Certificate and ITI Diploma; Ex.PW1/3 is copy of FIR No. 0459/2022; Ex.PW1/4 is copy of MLC dated 24.08.2022; Ex.PW1/5 is copy of disability certificate.'' 5.1 He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company only. In his cross-examination he deposed that the spot of accident was near Pilli Kothi. He further deposed that he MACT No. 967/22 Somdutt Sharma Vs. Bhoopender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 6/26 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.21 11:49:01 +0530 does not have any medical bills. He denied the suggestion that he was in Delhi as a visitor a the time of accident.
5.2 Petitioner further examined one Dr. Sanjay Yadav, Ortho Specialist and Incharge Disability Board, Aruna Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital, Delhi as PW-2. He deposed that he had issued the disability to Sh. Som Dutt Sharma as he was the Incharge of Disability Board and same is exhibited as Ex.PW2/1. He further deposed that injured was examined by the disability board under his chairman ship incharge and he was found 70% permanent physical impairment in relation to left lower limb which is not likely to improve in future. He was not cross-examined by the respondents.
5.3 PE was then closed.
6. Respondents did not lead any evidence in their defence.
ARGUMENTS AND FINDINGS
7. Oral submissions were advanced by Ld. Counsel for parties.
8. I have perused the record and my issue wise findings is as under:-
ISSUE NO.1 "Whether the petitioner Som Dutt suffered injuries in an accident that took place on MACT No. 967/22 Somdutt Sharma Vs. Bhoopender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 7/26 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.21 11:49:08 +0530 24.08.2022 at about 07.00 AM involving vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1PC-9585 driven by the Respondent No.1 rashly and negligently and owned by the respondent no. 1, owned by the Respondent No. 2 and insured with the respondent no. 3? OPP.''
9. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
10. As already discussed above, the petitioner examined himself as PW-1 in order to prove the factual averments regarding the occurrence of accident. PW-1 has clearly and categorically stated that at the relevant date, time and place, he was standing at divider, a MACT No. 967/22 Somdutt Sharma Vs. Bhoopender Kumar & Ors. Page No.signed 8/26by PANKAJ Digitally PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.21 11:49:13 +0530 green DTC bus bearing registration no. DL-1PC-9585 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") which was being driven by its driver at high speed as well as in a rash and negligent manner hit and crushed the left leg of the petitioner. It is further stated that immediately thereafter the petitioner was removed to LNJP Hospital by CATS Ambulance and the left leg of the petitioner below knee was amputated. It is further stated that the petitioner has spent more than Rs.2 Lakhs on his treatment. He further deposed that he suffered 70% permanent disability with respect to his left lower limb and he has became unemployable permanently. Petitioner claims compensation on account of special pecuniary damage relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicine, transportation, diet, loss of earning during the period, he was injured, loss of earning during the period of treatment, loss of future earning on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, non-pecuniary damages, damages for pain suffering and trauma, loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life. PW-1 was subjected to a brief cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company. However, he remained consistent and seems to have withstood the test of cross-examination.
He has declined all the suggestions of R-3/ Insurance Company imputing the occurrence of accident to his own negligence. There is nothing on record which betrays any falsity or untruth in the oral testimony of PW-1. As such, it could be safely held that the oral testimony of PW-1 is reliable and trustworthy.
MACT No. 967/22 Somdutt Sharma Vs. Bhoopender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 9/26 Digitally signed byPANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.21 11:49:19 +0530
11. The very fact that R-1 has already been chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279/338 IPC in the above criminal case/FIR in itself is a strong circumstance to support the above oral testimony of PW1 and the case of petitioner on this issue. The copies of FIR, Chargesheet, Site plan, Mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle, medical papers, Seizure Memos and Arrest Memo of R-1 also corroborate the testimony of PW1.
12. Besides the above, R-1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the depositions being made by PW1 regarding the above accident and its manner etc., but he has not done so. Therefore, an adverse inference on this aspect is also required to be drawn against the respondents in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
13. In view of the above, it could be safely assumed that at the relevant time, R-1 was driving the offending vehicle a in rash and negligent manner in a high speed at the relevant time. In the absence of any averment or evidence regarding any mechanical defect in the offending vehicle or any material depicting any negligent/sudden act or omission on the part of the petitioner, the only inference possible in the given facts and circumstances is that of neglect and default on the part of R-1 in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is constrained to hold MACT No. 967/22 Somdutt Sharma Vs. Bhoopender Kumar & Ors. Page No. Digitally signed PANKAJ by 10/26 PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.08.21 11:49:25 +0530 R-1 guilty of gross negligence and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time.
14. In view of the disability certificate, medical treatment documents placed on record by the petitioner, no dispute is left regarding the nature of injuries sustained by him in the above accident.
15. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal holds that the petitioner suffered grievous injuries on his person on account of negligence and default of R-1 while driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. This issue thus stands decided against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner.
ISSUE NO. 2"Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
16. As the issue no.1 has been proved in affirmative and in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner has become entitled to be compensated for the injuries suffered in the above accident, but the computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided.
17. In terms of provisions contained in Section 168 of the MV Act the compensation which is to be awarded by this tribunal is required to be 'just'. In the injury cases a claimant is entitled to two MACT No. 967/22 Somdutt Sharma Vs. Bhoopender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 11/26 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.21 11:49:31 +0530 different kinds of compensations i.e. Pecuniary as well as non- pecuniary damages. The "pecuniary damages" or special damages are those damages which are awarded and designed to make good the losses which are capable of being calculated in terms of money and the object of awarding these damages is to indemnify the claimant for the expenses which he had already incurred or is likely to incur in respect of the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The "non- pecuniary" or general damages are those damages which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. The pecuniary or special damages generally include the expenses incurred by the claimant towards his treatment, special diet, conveyance, cost of nursing/ attendant, loss of income/earning capacity etc. and the non-pecuniary damages generally include the compensation for the mental or physical shock, pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, marriage prospects and disfiguration etc. The above categories falling under both the heads of compensation are not exhaustive in nature but only illustrative. It is also necessary to state here that no amount of money or compensation can put the injured/claimant exactly in the same position or place where he was before the accident and an effort is to be made only to reasonably compensate him or to put him almost in the same place or position where he could have been if the alleged accident had not taken place and this compensation is to be assessed in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The object of compensating him is also not to reward him or to make him rich in an unjust manner. It is also well settled that the 'just' compensation to be awarded to the claimant has to be calculated MACT No. 967/22 Somdutt Sharma Vs. Bhoopender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 12/26 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.21 11:49:36 +0530 objectively and it may involve some guess work in calculating the different amounts which the claimant may be entitled under the different heads of compensation. Further, in case of permanent disability, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earning, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. Reference in this regard can be made on some of important judgments on the subject like the judgment in the case of R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 755, Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2010) 10 SCC 254 and Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343.
18. In light of the above legal propositions, the amount of compensation which can be considered to be 'just' in the opinion of this tribunal shall be as under:-
(i) Medical Treatment Expenses
19. The petitioner has not filed any original medical bill and as such nothing is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
(ii) Pain and Suffering
20. As per medical documents, the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries and also sustained 70% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb. As per disability certificate no. 1982 dated 20/05/2024 issued by Aruna Asaf Ali Govt Hospital, Delhi, petitioner is a case of ''FUC of B/K amputation ( Lt)' and was found MACT No. 967/22 Somdutt Sharma Vs. Bhoopender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 13/26 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.21 11:49:41 +0530 to have sustained 70% permanent disability in relation to left lower limb. The aforementioned certificate was issued in terms of the directions of this Tribunal vide order dated 23/04/2024. Accordingly, the aforementioned disability certificate could be read in evidence in terms of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Union of India in Writ Petition (s) (Civil ) No (s). 534/2020 date of order 16/11/2021. It is not possible to quantify the compensation admissible to petitioner for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which he actually suffered because of the above injuries, but as stated above, an effort has to be made to compensate him for the same in a just and reasonable manner. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the injuries suffered by petitioner and duration of the treatment taken by him etc., an amount of Rs.50,000/- is being awarded to him towards pain and sufferings during the said period of his treatment and immobility. Thus, he is awarded a total amount of Rs. 50,000/- under this head.
(iii) Loss of actual earnings
21. In his affidavit Ex. PW1/A, the petitioner claims that he was working as a Labourer and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month approximately from that vocation. The discharge summaries placed on record by petitioner reflect that the petitioner sustained a grievous injuries which resulted into 70% permanent disability with to left lower limb. The above documents are sufficient to uphold the claim of the petitioner to the effect that he was unable to resume his work MACT No. 967/22 Somdutt Sharma Vs. Bhoopender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 14/26 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.21 11:49:48 +0530 since the date of accident. In view of the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, it could be safely assumed that the petitioner has become unfit to some extent for work for rest of his life after the accident and he could not have worked for about 03 months due to the injuries. In the absence of any material as to the monthly earnings of the petitioner, it would be appropriate to assume the monthly earnings of the petitioner as per the Minimum Wages payable to a Matriculates Person in Delhi. As per relevant notification, the Minimum Wages admissible to a Matriculates Person as on 24/08/2022 in Delhi were Rs.20,019/-. As such, the petitioner is held entitled to a sum of Rs.60,057/- (Rs.20,019/- X 3). The said sum is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
(iv) Loss of future earnings due to disability
22. Petitioner claimed in his affidavit Ex. PW1/A that he has become permanently disabled after the accident and could not perform his work by resuming his duties. Admittedly, petitioner has suffered 70% permanent disability with respect to left lower limb. As per the record, the petitioner has suffered 70% permanent physical impairment in relation to his left lower limb. Petitioner is a labourer by profession as such his disability would certainly make him incapable of performing any labour work. Therefore, in these circumstances considering the nature of vocation of the petitioner and his physical state, the functional disability of petitioner is assessed at 100%. This Tribunal has already assumed MACT No. 967/22 Somdutt Sharma Vs. Bhoopender Kumar & Ors. Page No. Digitally 15/26 signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.21 11:49:53 +0530 the monthly income of petitioner to be Rs.20,019/- at the relevant time. As far as the age of petitioner at the time of accident is concerned, we may look into the photocopy of petitioner's Aadhar Card which is Ex.PW1/1. As per the said document, the date of birth of petitioner was 08/07/1987. The date of accident is 24/08/2022. Going by the same, the age of petitioner as on the date of accident was around 35 years. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.,(2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment dated 31.10.2017 given in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, the multiplier of '16' is held applicable for calculating the loss of future earnings of petitioner arising out of his above disability. Thus, the loss of future earnings of petitioner due to his above injury and permanent locomotor disability comes to Rs.53,81,107/- (rounded off) (Rs.20,019 X 140/100 X 100/100 X 12X 16 ) and the same is awarded to him as compensation under this head.
(v) Conveyance, Attendant Charges and Special Diet
23. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the extent of permanent physical disability and the extended period of medical treatment, the petitioner is granted a sum of Rs. 35,000/- each under these heads.
MACT No. 967/22 Somdutt Sharma Vs. Bhoopender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 16/26 Digitally signedby PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.08.21 11:49:58 +0530
(vi) Loss of amenities of life and disfigurement
24. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the extent of permanent physical disability and the extended period of medical treatment, the petitioner is granted a sum of Rs. 35,000/- each under these heads.
Issue No.3/Relief
25. The petitioner is thus entitled to a sum of Rs.56,66,164/- (Rupees Fifty Six Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand One Hundred Sixty Four Only) (Rs. 50,000/- + Rs.60,057/- + Rs.53,81,107/- + Rs.35,000/- + Rs. 35,000/- + Rs.35,000/- + Rs. 35,000/- + Rs.35,000/-) along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR i.e. 16/12/2022. Since no interim compensation has been awarded, therefore no deduction is applicable.
RELEASE
26. On 09/082024, statement of petitioner qua financial needs and requirements was recorded in terms of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 32 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. As per his statement, his household expenditure is Rs.25,000/- per month. Photocopy of the passbook of the bank account of the petitioner maintained with Canara Bank, Branch :
Shastri Nagar, Delhi was also placed on record at that time. Photocopies of Aadhar Card and PAN Card were also placed on MACT No. 967/22 Somdutt Sharma Vs. Bhoopender Kumar & Ors. Page PANKAJ No.by17/26 Digitally signed PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.21 11:50:03 +0530 record by the injured, apart from two coloured photographs of the petitioner.
26.1 Out of the awarded amount, a sum of Rs.56,00,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Six Lakhs Only) is directed to be kept with State Bank of India, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in MACAD in the form of 280 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 280 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 35, 36 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in his savings/MACT Claims Bank Account bearing No.110187418590, IFSC Code - CNRB0018890, maintained with Canar Bank Branch - Shastri Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP (PAN No.KTCPS7615J) on monthly basis. The remaining amount of Rs.8,21,653/-(Rupees Eight Lakhs Twenty One Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Three Only) is also directed to be released into his above said account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the petitioner.
27. The Bank(s) shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the petitioner(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the petitioner(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s). The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the SBI, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement MACT No. 967/22 Somdutt Sharma Vs. Bhoopender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 18/26 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.08.21 11:50:11 +0530 containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by the bank to the petitioner(s). The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credit by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the petitioner(s) near the place of their residence. No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre- mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of this Tribunal.
LIABILITY
28. As already stated above, R-1 being the driver and principal tortfeasor and R-2 being owner of the offending vehicle, and also being vicariously liable for the acts of R-1, are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to petitioner. However, since the offending vehicle was insured with R-3 at the time of accident, therefore, R-3/ Insurance Company is liable to indemnify R-2 in respect of above liability. As such R-3 is directed to deposit the above award amount within 30 days from the date of this Award by way of NEFT or RTGS mode in the account of this Tribunal maintained with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (account holder's name-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 02 Central, A/C No. 40743576901, IFSC Code SBIN0000726) under intimation to the petitioner/ injured and this Tribunal in terms of the format for remittance of compensation as provided in Divisional Manager Vs. Rajesh, 2016 SCC Online Mad. 1913 (and reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the orders dated 16.03.2021 and 16.11.2021 MACT No. 967/22 Somdutt Sharma Vs. Bhoopender Kumar & Ors. Page Digitally No. 19/26 signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.08.21 11:50:16 +0530 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors) along with interest @ 8% per annum till the deposit of the compensation as awarded, failing which he shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
29. A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
30. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
31. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & MACT No. 967/22 Somdutt Sharma Vs. Bhoopender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 20/26 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.21 11:50:22 +0530 Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 21.09.2024. PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA Digitally signed SHARMA Date: 2024.08.21 11:50:27 +0530 Announced in the open court (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA) on this 21.08.2024 PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL) DELHI FORM - XVI, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE
1. Date of accident : 24/08/2022
2. Name of the injured : Somdutt Sharma
3. Age of the injured : 35 years
4. Occupation of the injured : Electrician
5. Income of the injured : As per the Minimum Wages of a Matriculates Person prevailing in Delhi at the relevant time
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken MACT No. 967/22 Somdutt Sharma Vs. Bhoopender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 21/26 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.08.21 11:50:31 +0530 by injured : Differnt Hospitals
8. Period of Hospitalization : Different Periods
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details : YES
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss (I) Expenditure on treatment NIL
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.35,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 35,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 35,000/-
MACT No. 967/22 Somdutt Sharma Vs. Bhoopender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 22/26 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.08.21
11:50:36 +0530
(v) Cost of artificial limb NIL
(vi) Loss of earning capacity NIL
(vii) Loss of Income Rs.60,057/-
(viii) Any other loss which may NIL
require any special
treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his
life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental NIL
and physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.35,000/-
MACT No. 967/22 Somdutt Sharma Vs. Bhoopender Kumar & Digitally Ors. signed Page No. 23/26 PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.21 11:50:41 +0530
(iv) Disfiguration Rs.35,000/-
(v) Loss of marriage prospects NIL
(vi) Loss of earning, N.A. inconvenience, hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability 70% w.r.t. left lower assessed and nature of limb disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N.A expectation of life span on account of disability 100%
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation to disability MACT No. 967/22 Somdutt Sharma Vs. Bhoopender Kumar & Digitally Ors.by PANKAJ Page No. 24/26
signed PANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2024.08.21 11:50:48 +0530
(iv) Loss of future income - Rs.53,81,107/-
(Income x % Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL Rs.56,66,164/-
COMPENSATION
15. INTEREST AWARDED 8% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the Rs.7,55,489/-
date of award
17. Total amount including Rs.64,21,653/-
interest
18. Award amount released Rs.8,21,653/-
19. Award amount kept in As per award FDRs MACT No. 967/22 Somdutt Sharma Vs. Bhoopender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 25/26 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.21 11:50:54 +0530
20. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the the award amount to the award claimant(s).
21. Next date for compliance of 21.09.2024 the award.
CONCLUSION:-
1. As per award dated 21.08.2024.
2. A separate file is ordered to be prepared by the Nazir with directions to put up the same on 21.09.2024.Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA (DR.
Date: 2024.08.21 PANKAJ SHARMA) 11:50:59 +0530 PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL) DELHI/21/08/2024 MACT No. 967/22 Somdutt Sharma Vs. Bhoopender Kumar & Ors. Page No.signed Digitally 26/26 by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.08.21 11:51:03 +0530