Delhi District Court
Rohit Jain vs Jairam Yadav & Ors on 16 December, 2017
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
In the Court of Sh. G. N. Pandey
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
MACT No. 277/17
IN THE MATTER OF :
Rohit Jain
S/o Sh. Anil Jain
R/o T118/3, Gali No. 10,
Gautampur, Delhi53
................ Petitioner
V E R S U S
1. Jai Ram Yadav Driver / Owner
S/o Sh. R. L. Yadav
R/o S146, Indraprastha Colony,
Shahbazpur, Distt. Ghaziabad, UP
2. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Divisional Office No. IV,
90, Janpath, New Delhi.
................. Respondents
Date of Institution of petition : 04.07.2017 Date of Judgment/Order : 16.12.2017 MACT No. 277/17 1 of 19 Rohit Jain V/s Jairam Yadav & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
A W A R D:
1. By this order, I shall dispose off the claim petition filed by the petitioner / injured for grant of compensation in view of the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 12.01.2017 at 10 AM, the injured alongwith his friend Pradeep Gupta were going to appear in exam at Greater Noida, Janhit college on motorcycle No. DL 1 SAA 7700 as pillion rider. Suddenly a car No. UP 14 ET 3649 came in high speed in rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle of injured. As a result of which, the petitioner and his friend fell down and sustained grievous injuries. The injured were removed to Kailash Hospital, Noida, UP. Case Crime No. 29/2017 was registered at PS Knowledge Park for offence U/s 279/338 IPC. 3 The respondent No. 1 filed WS denying the averments made in the petition contending that this petition is not maintainable and there is no cause of action for filing of the same. As contended, respondent No. 1 is having valid DL issued by the RTO; said vehicle is fully insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Bearing Policy No. 0401003115P114648327. While denying rest of the claim of the petitioner in the petition, the respondent No. 1 prayed to dismiss the petition with cost.
4. Respondent No. 2/ insurance company filed WS of the petition contending that insurance policy No. 0401003115P114648327 valid for the period from 03.03.2016 to 02.03.2017 was issued by the answering respondent for vehicle No. UP 14 ET 3649 in the name of Sh. Jai Ram Yadav.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: MACT No. 277/17 2 of 19 Rohit Jain V/s Jairam Yadav & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
(i) Whether petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. UP 14 ET 3649 by respondent No. 1 on 12.01.2017 at about 10 AM at Main Road, near village Tugalpur towards East from PS within the jurisdiction of PS Knowledge Park? OPP
(ii) Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation ? If so to what amount and from whom? OPP
(iii) Relief.
The petition was thereafter fixed for petitioner's evidence.
6. Petitioner / injured filed his affidavit by way of evidence Ex. PW 1/1 and examined himself as PW1 in support of the claim and deposed as per averments made in the petition. Witness has also relied upon the documents i.e. original rent agreement Ex. PW 1/ A, photocopy of PAN Card Ex. PW 1/ B, certified copies of criminal record Ex. PW 1/ C, treatment record and medical bills Ex. PW 1/ D, copy of discharge summary mark A, copy of original appointment letter mark B and copy of Election ID Card mark C. Petitioner also summoned and examined the witness i.e. Sh. Danvir Singh, Medical Record Clerk, Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi as PW2 appeared with the summoned record i.e. treatment record of patient Rohit Jain S/o Sh. Anil Jain vide C.R. No.71061. As per record, patient Rohit Jain was admitted in hospital on 13.01.2017. The date of LAMA (Left Medical Against Advice) dated 13.01.2017 and the attested copies of the abovesaid documents Ex. PW2/A (Colly 12 pages) OSR.
Petitioner also summoned and examined witness i.e. Sh. Parmanand, Record Keeper, Kailash Hospital, 23 Institutional Area, Knowledge Park1, Greater Noida, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P as PW3 appeared with the MACT No. 277/17 3 of 19 Rohit Jain V/s Jairam Yadav & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
summoned record i.e. the medical bill regarding the expenses incurred by the patient and the receipt of payment Ex. PW3/1 (Colly 2 pages). Witness further stated that as per documents Ex. PW3/1, amount of Rs. 1,120/ was paid by the patient towards dressing etc., and Rs. 640/ was paid towards medicine charges.
Petitioner also summoned and examined the witness i.e. Sh. Basant Kumar Sharma, Maintenance Incharge, Pareek Hospital and Research Centre, at 4/10, Bagh Farzana, Civil Lines, Agra, U.P as PW4 appeared with the summoned record i.e. the medical bill, the form of consent of operation, patient registration card, treatment history sheet and treatment card Ex. PW4/1 OSR (Colly 10 pages). Witness further stated that patient has paid Rs. 5,250/ towards the hospital bed, OT Charges, Image, registration charges. The bills for implantation of surgical rod, is medical professional charges and anesthesia charges are to be issued by the concerned doctor and the patient has to bear the expenses of the required medicines. Witness further stated that hospital does not maintain those bills.
Petitioner also summoned and examined the witness i.e. Sh. Gagandeep, Assistant Manager, HR, Camila Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. (Call centre) office at 3333A, Rama Road, Near Kirti Nagar Metro Station, New Delhi110015 as PW5 appeared with the office copy of letter of appointment dated 8th September 2016, issued to the petitioner and the copy of same Ex. PW5/1 OSR (Colly 6 pages). Witness has also brought the authorization letter issued by company to depose before this Ld. Tribunal Ex.PW5/2.
The petitioner also summoned and examined witness i.e. Dr. Himanshu, Sr. Resident, Department of Orthopedics, GTB Hospital, Delhi who proved the disability certificate Ex. PW 6/A. In view of the disability certificate, the MACT No. 277/17 4 of 19 Rohit Jain V/s Jairam Yadav & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
petitioner is suffering 63 % permanent physical disability in relation to left upper limb and left lower limb. PE was thereafter closed.
7. Respondent No. 1 examined himself as R1W1 by way of affidavit Ex. R1W1/A who deposed nothing but as deposed in the WS.
During the proceedings, counsel for insurance company stated that he does not want to examine any witness. RE was thereafter closed.
8. I have heard ld. Counsel for petitioner, ld counsel for respondent No. 1 and counsel for insurance company and considered the relevant materials on record. My issue wise findings are as below : Issue No. 1:
(i) Whether petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. UP 14 ET 3649 by respondent No. 1 on 12.01.2017 at about 10 AM at Main Road, near village Tugalpur towards East from PS within the jurisdiction of PS Knowledge Park? OPP
9. To succeed in the claim petition in view of Section 166 of the MV Act, it is for the claimant to prove that vehicle which caused the accident was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. Petitioner / injured filed his affidavit by way of evidence and examined himself as PW1 who deposed about the facts of the case. He was crossexamined on behalf of respondents and during crossexamination nothing has come forward in his testimony to disbelieve the version of PW1. On the other hand, the testimony of RW did not rebut the testimony of PW to deny the claim of the petitioner and mere denial is not sufficient to rebut the claim of the petitioner. No witness was produced or examined by respondents as well to prove as to how accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner; the respondent No. 1 was not MACT No. 277/17 5 of 19 Rohit Jain V/s Jairam Yadav & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
at fault and was not driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. Certified copies of criminal record filed vide Ex. PW 1/C. The petitioner/ injured has proved the relevant records in support of contentions and there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of witnesses. I have gone through the record and documents in respect of the accident caused to the petitioner which is prima facie suggestive of negligence of respondent No. 1 in driving the vehicle at the time of accident.
Relied judgment in (Bimla Devi and Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors., (2009) 13 SC 530 and the judgment in Parmeshwari v. Amir Chand (2011) 11 SCC 635 and Kusum Lata v. Satbir, (2011) 3 SCC
646).
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi and Ors. V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors, (2009) 13 SC 530 held as under:
"15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of any accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimant. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."
10. In judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Deepak Goel & Ors., 2014 (2), T.A.C. 846 (Del.), it was held that in a case, where FIR is lodged, chargesheet is filed, then the documents mentioned above are sufficient to establish the fact that the driver of the vehicle in question was negligent in causing the accident particularly when there was no defence available from his side. In case of Cholamandalam MACT No. 277/17 6 of 19 Rohit Jain V/s Jairam Yadav & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamlesh, 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310, an adverse inference was drawn because the driver of the offending vehicle had not appeared in the witness box to corroborate his defence taken in the written statement. It was noted that there was nothing on record to show that the Claimant had any enmity with the driver of the offending vehicle so as to falsely implicate him in the case.
11. I have gone through the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 2009 ACJ 287, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana to examine the aspect of negligence wherein in the Hon'ble High Court held that: In case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of the investigation by the police or the issuance of charge sheet under section 279/304 A IPC or the certified copy of the FIR or in addition the recovery memo and the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach to the conclusion that the driver was negligent. It was further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard.
Further, in Kaushnumma Begum and others V/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident has been left to a secondary importance and it was held that, mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to MACT No. 277/17 7 of 19 Rohit Jain V/s Jairam Yadav & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
property would made the petition maintainable under section 166 and 140 of the Act. It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be construed lightly while making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code. This is because the chapter in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with compensation is a benevolent legislation and not a penal one. Further the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC App. No.200/2012 in case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Smt. Rinki @ Rinku & Ors decided on 23/07/2012 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, held as under:
"The Claims Tribunal was conscious of the fact that negligence is a sine qua non to a Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(the Act). It is also true that the proceedings for grant of compensation under the Act are neither governed by the criminal procedures nor are a civil suit.
12. Therefore, in view of the material on records and testimony of witnesses, it is proved that the petitioner/ injured sustained grievous injuries in the accident which occurred on 12.01.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing No UP 14 ET 3649 driven by its driver i.e respondent No. 1. The issue No. 1 is decided accordingly. Issue No. ii :
(ii) Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation ? If so to what amount and from whom? OPP
13. Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2011) 1 SCC 343 titled Raj Kumar V/s Ajay Kumar & Anr. examined the general principles relating to compensation in injury cases. As held: MACT No. 277/17 8 of 19 Rohit Jain V/s Jairam Yadav & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
4. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( Act for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should , to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court of tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer V. T. Kunhikuttan Nair MANU/SC/0011/1969 : AIR 1970 SC 375, R.D. Hattangadi V. Pest Control ( India) Ltd. MANU/SC/0146/1995 : 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker V. Willoughby 1970 AC 467.
5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages ( Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and MACT No. 277/17 9 of 19 Rohit Jain V/s Jairam Yadav & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earning ( and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of
treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of
permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Nonpecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a
consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities ( and/ or loss of prospects of
marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life ( shortening of normal
longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (I), (ii) (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii) (b),
(iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earning on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities ( and / or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. Assessment of pecuniary damages under item (I) and under item (ii) (a) do not pose much difficulty as MACT No. 277/17 10 of 19 Rohit Jain V/s Jairam Yadav & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
they involve reimbursement of actual and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses item (iii) depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non pecuniary damages items (iv), (v) and (vi) - involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/ disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed regarding assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability that disability refers to any restriction for lack of liability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for human being permanent disability refers to the residuary in capacity or loss of huge of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after receiving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed which reference to the whole body, or more often then an not, with reference to a particularly limb. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, 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. What requires to be assessed by the tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on his earnings capacity of the injured; and MACT No. 277/17 11 of 19 Rohit Jain V/s Jairam Yadav & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
after assessing the loss of earnings capacity in terms of percentage of income, it has been pointify in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earning( by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency As further held, the trial has to first decide whether there is an permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability ( this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. Hon'ble Supreme court laid down the principles in respect of the assessment of compensation regarding injuries as below:
(i) All injuries ( or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the MACT No. 277/17 12 of 19 Rohit Jain V/s Jairam Yadav & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability ( except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injuredclaimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentage of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors.
14. I have gone through the testimony of the witnesses alongwith complete medical records. Ld. Counsel for respondents argued that as the petitioner failed to prove his income, he is entitled for compensation in accordance with the minimum wages at relevant time. It is further stated that injured has not suffered any monetary loss on account of the injury and therefore, he should not be granted any amount on account of loss of income.
15. PW1 has stated in his affidavit vide Ex. PW 1/1 that he is a young man of 27 years old and was working as Asstt. Manager in Telesales Department of M/s Camila Consultants India Pvt. Limited and was drawing a package of Rs. 3,12,000/ per annum. PW6 Dr. Himanshu, Sr. Resident, Department of MACT No. 277/17 13 of 19 Rohit Jain V/s Jairam Yadav & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Orthopedics, GTB Hospital, Delhi proved the disability certificate of petitioner which is Ex. PW 6/1 deposing that patient is suffering 63 % permanent physical disability in relation to left upper limb and left lower limb. Due to the disability received, certainly his carrier prospects and life has been affected including his earning capacity. As stated, he was doing the private job and in the opinion, he cannot perform his profession keeping in view of nature of work and injury/ age. It may be concluded that the accident/ disability of the petitioner can reduce his efficiency and activities. In the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of disability of the petitioner, I assessed that due to disabilities sustained, his capacity has been reduced restricting him from carrying his work. Considering the evidence on record and facts of the case, the functional disability of the petitioner has been assessed as 30 % in relation to his whole body, in view of judgment of Raj Kumar V/s Ajay Kumar & Ors., (2011) 1 SCC 343.
16. As per the Election ID Card of injured, the age of the injured was 21 years on 01.01.2012. The accident of petitioner took place on 12.01.2017, the age of petitioner at the time of accident was about 27 years. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was about 27 years of age on the date of accident. Injured stated that he was working as Asstt. Manager in Telesales Department of M/s Camila Consultants India Pvt. Limited and was drawing a package of Rs. 3,12,000/ per annum and in support of contentions, petitioner has summoned and examined the witness i.e. Sh. Gagandeep, Assistant Manager, HR, Camila Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. (Call centre) as PW5 appeared with the office copy of letter of appointment dated 8th September 2016, issued to the petitioner and the copy of same Ex. PW5/1 OSR (Colly 6 pages). Witness has also brought the authorization letter issued by company to depose before this Ld. MACT No. 277/17 14 of 19 Rohit Jain V/s Jairam Yadav & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Tribunal Ex.PW5/2. As per Ex. PW 5/ 1, the monthly salary of the injured is Rs. 26,000/ per month therefore income of the injured is taken as Rs. 26,000/ per month.
17. So far future prospects concern, in a recent judgment in HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lalta Devi & Ors., (Decided on 12.1.2015), it was observed that the three Judge Bench Decision in Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65 was held to be taken as a binding precedent. Therefore, in view of Lalta Devi & Ors (Supra)., in absence of any evidence of good future prospects, the Claimant is not entitled for the same.
Accordingly, the loss of income on account of disability/ future earnings is as follows:
1. Annual income before the accident (26,000/ X 12) Rs. 3,12,000/
2. Loss of future earnings per annum( 30 %) Rs. 93,600/
3. Multiplier applicable with reference to age 17
4. Loss of future earnings (17 x 93,600/) Rs. 15,91,200/ The Claimant is thus awarded a compensation of an amount of Rs. 15,91,200/( Rs. 26,000/ X 12 X 17 x 0.30) under the head Future Loss of Income.
18. There is nothing on record in support of the affidavit of PW1 that injured suffered any loss of earnings from his work. However, with the kind of injuries suffered by him, it can be safely assumed that he would have been under treatment for about three months. He is thus awarded Rs. 78,000/ (Rs. 26,000/ X 3) for three months for Loss of Wages.
19. The petitioner has claimed compensation from respondents. It is also claimed that after the accident, the petitioner could not perform his routine and MACT No. 277/17 15 of 19 Rohit Jain V/s Jairam Yadav & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
required attendant/ assistance for his day to day business; he also suffered financial losses due the accident and his family suffered mental pain and agony.
20. While fixing compensation for pain and sufferings, as also for loss of amenities of life, the features like the age and unusual deprivation undertaken by a person in his life generally are to be reckoned. From the overall assessment, his age and the fact that his disability shall remain throughout his life, I assess Rs. 50,000/ as compensation towards Pain, Shock and Suffering to the Claimant.
21. The Claimant will have to endure his physical discomfort, disappointment and stress for whole of his remaining life. He is awarded a compensation of Rs. 30,000/ towards Loss of Amenities and Enjoyment of Life.
22. Ld. Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has spent amount for his treatment and medical bills has been filed. In support of contentions, petitioner has summoned and examined the witnesses from the hospital. Petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs. 14,044/ towards medical bills.
23. The Claimant has not filed any document in support of the fact that he had incurred expenses on keeping an attendant, for conveyance and for extra nutritious diet. However, I guess he must have spent some amount for which he is awarded a lumpsum amount of Rs. 10,000/ for Special Diet and Rs. 10,000/ for Conveyance Charges.
24. Keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner and the fact that he was under constant treatment, he needed an Attendant to look after him and the petitioner is therefore, entitled to attendant charges. Petitioner has not filed any record to show that he has received help of special attendant MACT No. 277/17 16 of 19 Rohit Jain V/s Jairam Yadav & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
however, some family member must have been attending him. A victim of accident has to be compensated in terms of money even if gratuitous services are under by a family members. In Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Lalita AIR 1981 Delhi 558, a Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court held that there cannot be any deduction if domestic help is obtained from a family member. This judgment was again relied upon by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Narayan Bahadur v. Sumeet Gupta and Anr., MAC APP. No. 762/11 dated 04.07.12. In the circumstances, where the injured had suffered permanent disability, it is deemed fit that a lump sum of Rs. 10,000/ be awarded as compensation towards Attendant charges.
25. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, I consider the following amount to be the just compensation to the Claimant :
1. Future Loss of Income Rs. 15,91,200/
2. Towards Pain Shock & Suffering Rs. 50,000/
3. Towards Loss of Amenities & Enjoyment of Life Rs. 30,000/ 4 Towards Servant / Attendant Charges Rs. 10,000/
5. Towards Conveyance & Special diet Rs. 20,000/ 6 Towards medical bills Rs. 14,044/ 7 Towards loss of Wages Rs. 78,000/ Total= Rs. 17,93,244/ I accordingly award an amount of compensation of Rs. 17,93,244/ rounded to Rs. 17,93,300/ in favour of the Claimant and against Respondents. Liability: Respondent No. 2 is the insurance company which admittedly has issued a valid insurance policy of the offending vehicle. There is no evidence MACT No. 277/17 17 of 19 Rohit Jain V/s Jairam Yadav & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
on behalf of respondent No. 2 to show that there was any violation of the rules and terms of policy by the respondent No. 1. Hence, I am of the opinion that respondent No. 2 being insurance company is liable to pay the compensation on behalf of respondent No. 1. Interim award if any paid to injured/ petitioner be adjusted in the award amount.
Award:
26. Resultantly, the claim petition stands allowed. Insurance Company is hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 17,93,300/ within one month to the Claimant. Claimant is also entitled to the interest @ 09 % p.a. on the total compensation amount from the date of filing of petition till realization. (The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gopali & Ors., 2012 ACJ 2131 SC, Jiju Kuruvila & Ors. Vs. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors., 2013 ACJ 2141 SC, Puttamma Vs. K.L. Naraynan Reddy & Ors., 2014 ACJ 526 SC). Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount with UCO Bank, KKD Courts Branch, Delhi and the same be transferred to the Claimant's bank.
27. UCO Bank, KKD Courts is directed to keep the amount of Rs. 16,00,000/ in 100 FDRs of Rs. 16,000/ each for the maturity period of 1 to 100 months with cumulative interest.
28. All the original FDRs shall be retained by the UCO bank, KKD Courts. However, the statement containing the FDRs number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by the UCO Bank to the petitioner/ beneficiary. On expiry of period of each FDR, the Bank shall automatically credit the maturity amount in Savings Account of beneficiary. The beneficiary shall intimate regarding his bank and account number for automatic credit of the maturity amount.
29. No loan, advance or premature discharge of the FDRs shall be MACT No. 277/17 18 of 19 Rohit Jain V/s Jairam Yadav & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
permitted without permission of this court.
30. The maturity amount of the FDRs alongwith interest thereon be transferred to the saving bank accounts of the beneficiary at HDFC Bank, Branch Gurgaon, Haryana.
31. The liberty is given to the petitioner/ injured to approach this court for release of further amount in event of any financial exigency.
32. The UCO bank, KKD Court is directed to release the balance amount after keeping Rs. 16,00,000/ in FDRs to the petitioner by transferring the same to his saving bank account with HDFC Bank, Branch Gurgaon, Haryana. On request of Claimant, bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch in the name of petitioner and the bank of the petitioner are directed not to issue any cheque book or Debit Card to the account holder.
33. The award amount alongwith interest be deposited by Insurance Company, within 30 days in the court. In case, the Insurance Company fails to deposit this compensation with proportionate interest, in that event, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal, 2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of Insurance Company with a cost of Rs. 10,000/.
34. FormIV shall be read as a part of the judgment.
Announced in open Court on this 16th day of December, 2017 G. N. Pandey Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
MACT No. 277/17 19 of 19 Rohit Jain V/s Jairam Yadav & Ors.