Delhi District Court
Mact No. 643/17(Dar), 658/19, 657/19 & ... vs . Dalip Kashyap & Ors. on 13 March, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA:
ADJ-1+ PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT: NORTH WEST DISTRICT:
ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
UID No./CNR No. DLNW01-007971-2017
MACT CASE No. 643/17 (DAR petition)
In Re :
1. Sh. Gopi (Injured)
Aged about- 21 years.
S/o Sh. Bhupat,
R/o H. No. B-3/248,
Top Floor, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi
2. Sh. Sonu, (Injured)
Aged about-20 years,
S/o Sh. Tilak Dev Parshad,
R/o H. No. D-232,
Raghubir Nagar, Delhi.
3. Sh. Ajay, (Injured)
Aged about-23 years
S/o Sh. Jagdish,
R/o H. No. WZ- 54/A-32,
T- Huts, Vishal Enclave,
Tagore Garden, Delhi,
AND
MACT No. 658/19 (Claim Petition) (Injured)
UID No./CNR No. DLNW01-01036-2019
Sh. Gopi
Aged about- 21 years.
S/o Sh. Bhupat,
R/o H. No. B-3/248,
Top Floor, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi
AND
MACT No. 657/19 ( Claim Petition) (Injured)
UID No./CNR No. DLNW01-010366-2019
Sh. Sonu,
Aged about-20 years,
S/o Sh. Tilak Dev Parshad,
R/o H. No. D-232,
Raghubir Nagar, Delhi.
MACT No. 643/17(DAR), 658/19, 657/19 & 656/19 Gopi & Ors. vs. Dalip Kashyap & Ors.
Page No. 1 /37
AND
MACT No.656/19 ( Claim Petition) (Injured)
UID No./CNR No. DLNW01-010365-2019
Sh. Ajay,
Aged about-23 years
S/o Sh. Jagdish,
R/o H. No. WZ 54/A-32,
T- Huts, Vishal Enclave,
Tagore Garden, Delhi, ....... Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Dalip Kashyap (Driver)
S/o Sh. Shiv Charan
R/o A-34, Vijay Nagar,
Mohan Garden,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi
2. Sh. Shiv Charan (Owner)
S/o Sh. Shyam Lal
R/o A-34, Vijay Nagar,
Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi
3. Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
15, DLF, Tower Shivaji Marg,
New Delhi
.......... Respondents
Date of institution of the DAR petition : 10.08.2017 Date of institution of claim petitions : 25.10.2019 First date before this court : 18.10.2018 Date of Arguments : 05.03.2020 Date of Decision : 13.03.2020 APPEARANCE (s): Sh. Ashok Dahiya, Ld. Counsel for petitioners.
Sh. Lalji Tiwari, Ld. Counsel for R-1 & R-2.
Sh. Suvir Sharma, Ld. Counsel for insurance Co MACT No. 643/17(DAR), 658/19, 657/19 & 656/19 Gopi & Ors. vs. Dalip Kashyap & Ors.
Page No. 2 /37FORM - V COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE (EFFECTIVE W.E.F. 01.01.2019) TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD AS PER FORMAT REFERRED VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN FAO 842/2003 RAJESH TYAGI VS. JAIBIR SINGH & ORS.
1. Date of the accident 26.03.2017
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the 10.08.2017 investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal.
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the 04.08.2017 investigating officer to the insurance company.
4. Date of filing of Report under section 173 __ Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate.
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident 10.08.2017 Information Report (DAR) by the investigating Officer before Claims Tribunal.
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance 10.08.2017 Company.
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant(s). 10.08.2017
8. Whether DAR was complete in all Yes respects?
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR __ removed later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the Yes documents filed with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or No deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the insurance Company. Not mentioned.
13. Name, address and contact number of the Sh. Nilesh Bairwa, MACT No. 643/17(DAR), 658/19, 657/19 & 656/19 Gopi & Ors. vs. Dalip Kashyap & Ors.
Page No. 3 /37
Designated Officer of the Insurance Senior Executive, Legal
Company. with Bajaj Allianz
General Insurance Co.
Ltd.
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Yes
Insurance Company submitted his report
within 30 days of the DAR? (Clause 22)
15. Whether the insurance company admitted No
the liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the insurance company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or No. No action warranted deficiency on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to the 11.12.2017 offer of the Insurance Company.
18. Date of the Award.
13.03.2020
19. Whether the award was passed with the No consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to Yes open saving bank account(s) near their place of residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to open saving bank account (s) near his place of residence and produce 25.02.2020 PAN Card and Aadhar 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.
22. Date on which the claimant (s) produced 05.03.2020 the passbook of their saving bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
MACT No. 643/17(DAR), 658/19, 657/19 & 656/19 Gopi & Ors. vs. Dalip Kashyap & Ors.
Page No. 4 /3723. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned above. Claimant(s).
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the claimant(s) and the address of the bank Petitioner Sh. Gopi is with IFSC Code. having saving bank account bearing no.
603410110017251, Bank of Baroda, branch Rajouri Garden, Delhi-
110027.
Petitioner Sonu is having saving bank account bearing no.
435602010014069, Union Bank of India, Branch Rajouri Garden, Delhi-110027.
Petitioner Ajay is having saving bank account bearing no.
0605001500109092, Punjab National Bank, branch Rajouri Garden, Delhi-110027.
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank Yes account(s) is near his place of residence?
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at Yes the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition.
27. Account number, MICR number, IFSC State Bank of India, Code, name and branch of the bank of the Rohini Courts Branch, Claims Tribunal in which the award Delhi. IFSC Code- amount is to be deposited/transferred. SBIN0010323.
MACT No. 643/17(DAR), 658/19, 657/19 & 656/19 Gopi & Ors. vs. Dalip Kashyap & Ors.
Page No. 5 /37PETITION UNDER SECTION 166 & 140 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 FOR GRANT OF COMPENSATION JUDGMENT / AWARD:-
1. By way of present common judgment/award, I shall conscientiously dispose of the DAR (Detailed Accidental Report) filed by the investigating agency in terms of MCTAP (Motor Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure) which has been treated as a claim petition U/s 166 (4) of M. V. Act, 1988 for grant of compensation and also the petitions U/s 166 & 140 of M. V. Act, 1988 filed by the petitioners/injured persons against the respondents for grant of compensation. It is made specific that the determination is common uptil issue no.1, whereafter which it is specific to the injuries sustained by each petitioner.
2. The brief material facts relevant to decide the present claim petition as averred are that on 26.03.2017, one Sh. Harsihit S/o Sh. Rajender Kumar along-with his friend Ajay (one of the petitioners) were going on motorcycle bearing no. DL-10SQ-8414, which was being driven by Ajay. Petitioner/Injured Gopi along-with his friend Sonu, who is also one of the petitioners in the present were going on motorcycle cycle bearing no. DL-10SS-6587 which was being driven by petitioner/injured Sonu. When they reached near Sec-24, Rohini Rithala road, suddenly one TATA Champion bearing registration no. DL-1LJ-
3173 which was being driven by its driver (respondent no. 1 herein) in a rash and negligent manner took a sharp turn to Sector-24, Rohini and hit both the aforesaid motorcycles. Due to forceful impact, all the three petitioners/injured namely Gopi, Sonu and Ajay sustained injuries. All of them were removed to Dr. B.S.A. Hospital, Rohini, Delhi where they were medically examined and their MLC's were prepared by the doctors of the said hospital. Due to serious condition of petitioner Gopi, he was shifted to Sri Balaji Action Medical Institute and further got admitted to Kheterpal Nursing Home where he remained MACT No. 643/17(DAR), 658/19, 657/19 & 656/19 Gopi & Ors. vs. Dalip Kashyap & Ors.
Page No. 6 /37hospitalized from 03.04.2017 to 06.04.2017. The police authorities have registered a case against the respondent no. 1 for the alleged accident vide FIR No. 166/17 U/s 279/338 IPC with P.S. Begumpur.
3. R-1 and R-2 filed their respective replies and denied the contents made in the DAR/Claim petitions, where which it has been contended that the R- 1/driver was having a valid DL at the time of the accident and the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no. 3/Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd. Vide policy no. OG-17-1104-1831-00005071 having validity upto 07.02.2018.
4. Respondent no. 3 i.e. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. filed three separate replies cum legal offers, where it is has been admitted that the alleged offending vehicle bearing no. DL-1LJ-3173 was insured with it and it has been further contended that any of the injured/petitioners was not wearing helmet while riding on motorcycles, as such, 20% out of the total compensation awarded, if any be deducted towards contributory negligence.
5. On perusal of the pleadings and documents, the following issues were framed by the tribunal on 28.09.2018:-
ISSUES.
1. Whether on 26.03.2017 at about 09:25 a.m., T-point, Sec-
24/25, Rohini, Delhi driver namely Sh. Dalip Kashyap, S/o Sh Shiv Charan was driving TATA Champion bearing registration no. DL-1LJ-3173 in a rash and negligent amnner and hit the motorcycle of the petitioner's/injured persons and caused injuries to Gopi S/o Sh. Bhupat, Sonu, S/o Sh. Tilak Dev Parshad and Ajay S/o Sh. Jagdish?OPP
2. Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?OPP.
3. Relief.
MACT No. 643/17(DAR), 658/19, 657/19 & 656/19 Gopi & Ors. vs. Dalip Kashyap & Ors.
Page No. 7 /376. To substantiate their claims, all the thee inured/petitioners examined themselves as PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 respectively.
7. Respondent no. 1 & 2 and R-3 on their part, did not lead any evidence. RE was closed vide order dated 05.08.2019 of the tribunal.
8. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record including the pleadings and the documents. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the same. The issue wise determination is as under:-
ISSUE NO.1 " Whether on 26.03.2017 at about 09:25 a.m., T-point, Sec-24/25, Rohini, Delhi driver namely Sh. Dalip Kashyap, S/o Sh Shiv Charan was driving TATA Champion bearing registration no. DL-1LJ-3173 in a rash and negligent amnner and hit the motorcycle of the petitioner's/injured persons and caused injuries to Gopi S/o Sh. Bhupat, Sonu, S/o Sh. Tilak Dev Parshad and Ajay S/o Sh. Jagdish?OPP
9. The onus to prove, the aforesaid issue was on petitioners who have examined themselves as PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 respectively and in their testimonies by way of affidavits Ex. PW-1/A, PW-2/A and Ex. PW-3/A deposed on the lines of averments made in the DAR/claim petitions. They deposed about the mode and the manner in which the accident has taken place resulting into grievous injuries to them. PW-1 (petitioner Gopi S/o Sh. Bhupat) has relied upon the following documents: -
S. Description of documents Remarks
No.
1. Copy of Aadhaar card Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR)
2. Copy of MLC Ex. PW-1/2
3. Relevant Medical record Ex. Pw-1/3 (colly.)
4. Copy of 12th class Marksheet Ex. PW-1/4 (OSR)
5. Copy of ID card of first year Ex. PW-1/5 (OSR)
MACT No. 643/17(DAR), 658/19, 657/19 & 656/19 Gopi & Ors. vs. Dalip Kashyap & Ors.
Page No. 8 /37
10. PW-2 (petitioner Sonu, S/o Sh. Tilak Dev Parshad) has relied upon the following documents: -
S. No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of Aadhaar card Ex. PW-2/1 (OSR)
2. Copy of MLC Ex. PW-2/2
3. Relevant Medical records Ex. Pw-2/3 (colly.)
4. Copy of 12th class Marksheet Ex. PW-2/4 (OSR)
5. Copy of ID card of first year Ex. PW-2/5 (OSR)
11. PW-3 (petitioner Ajay, S/o Sh. Jagdish) has relied upon the following documents: -
S. No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of Aadhaar card Ex. PW-3/1 (OSR)
2. Copy of MLC Ex. PW-3/2
12. PW-1 (petitioner Gopi) was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for R-1 and R-2 where he has deposed that the accident was occurred on 25.03.2017 and he does not remember the number of the offending vehicle. He has further deposed that the driver who was driving their motorcycles were not having the DL. He has further deposed that they were not wearing helmet but he voluntarily deposed that they were wearing helment. He further deposed that he does not know whether they hit the offending vehicle from the left side. He has admitted that he became unconscious after the accident for about 2-3 hours. He denied the suggestion that the accident was occurred due to their mistakes.
13. PW-2 (petitioner Sonu) was also duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for R-1 and R-2 where he has deposed that he was driving his motorcycle bearing no. DL-10SS-6587 and was not having DL at the time of the accident. He has denied the suggestion that at the time of the accident, the vehicle was over speed or that due to high speed of his vehicle he could not MACT No. 643/17(DAR), 658/19, 657/19 & 656/19 Gopi & Ors. vs. Dalip Kashyap & Ors.
Page No. 9 /37control the vehicle and his vehicle was slipped when he tried to turn the vehicle. He has further deposed that he does not remember whether he hit the offending vehicle at its back side and due to that he fell down at the back side of the vehicle. He has denied the suggestion that the accident was occurred due to his negligence.
14. PW-3 (petitioner Ajay) was also duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for R-1 and R-2 where he has deposed that he does not remember the number of offending vehicle. He has admitted that he was driving his motorcycle bearing no. DL-SQ-8414. He also admitted that he was not having the driving licence at the time of accident. He has further admitted that he does not know the traffic rules. He has denied the suggestion that at the time of the accident, his vehicle was in over speed or that due to high speed of his vehicle he could not control the vehicle and his vehicle was slipped when he tried to turn the vehicle. He has further deposed that he does not remember whether he hit the offending vehicle at its back side and due to that he fell down at the back side of the vehicle. He has denied the suggestion that the accident was occurred due to his negligence.
15. Adverting to the nature of proceedings before tribunal, It has to be borne in mind that Motor Vehicles Act does not stipulate holdings a trial for petition preferred under section 166 of the Act. Under Section 168 of the Act, a Claims Tribunal holds an inquiry to determine compensation which must appear to it to be just, Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. In State of Mysore Vs. S.S Makapur, 1993 (2) SCR
943. Hon'ble Apex court held:-
" that tribunal exercising Quasi-Judicial function are not bound to follow the procedure prescribed for trial of actions in courts nor are they bound by strict rules of evidence. They MACT No. 643/17(DAR), 658/19, 657/19 & 656/19 Gopi & Ors. vs. Dalip Kashyap & Ors.Page No. 10 /37
can unlike courts, obtain all information for the points under the inquiry from all sources and through all channels, without being fettered by rules and procedure, which govern proceedings in court. The only obligation which the law casts on them is that they should not act on any information which they may receive unless they put it to the party against whom it is to be used and give him a fair opportunity to explain it. What is a fair opportunity depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but where such an opportunity has been given, the proceedings are not open to attack on the ground that the inquiry was not conducted in accordance with the procedure followed in Courts"
16. In Bimla Devi and Ors. Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors (2009) 13 SC 530, Supreme Court held that " 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 an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. 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."
17. In N.K V. Brothers (P) Ltd. Vs. M. Karumal Ammal, AIR 1980 SC 1354 Supreme Court has reminded the Claim Tribunals stating as follows:
"Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, specially, when truck and bus driver operate nocturnally. This pro-verbial recklessness often persuades the Courts, as has been observed by us earlier in other case, to draw an initial presumption in several cases bases on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitar. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here and some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The Court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes".
18. It is an undisputed fact that FIR No. 166/17, U/s 279/337 IPC, PS Begumpur, Delhi with regard to the accident in question has been registered MACT No. 643/17(DAR), 658/19, 657/19 & 656/19 Gopi & Ors. vs. Dalip Kashyap & Ors.
Page No. 11 /37against the respondent no. 1/driver of the offending vehicle. Copy of the said FIR as also the copy of charge sheet arising out of the said FIR (which forms part of DAR), would show that FIR was registered promptly on the date of the accident itself. It is also not under dispute that the offending vehicle bearing no. DL-1LJ-3173 was being driven by R-1 at the time of the accident and the same was owned by R-2 as per registration certificate (Part of DAR).
19. Adverting to the question of rash and negligent driving, the IO of the case has prepared the site plan (part of DAR) where the alleged accident has taken place. The mechanical inspections (which forms part of DAR in the aforementioned case) of the both the vehicles were also carried out by IO. As per the mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle, the same is found to have been damaged from left front side and left middle side whereas both the motorcyles of the petitioners were found to have been damaged from front side thereby corroborating the deposition of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 before the court.
20. In rebuttal, the respondent no. 1 & 2 did not lead any evidence. The respondent no. 1 who was driving the offending car could have rebutted the aforesaid testimony of the PW-1 that the accident in question has not taken place due to his negligence but he did not choose to step into the witness box. Therefore, an adverse inference can also be drawn against him. Further nothing contrary to the aforesaid has come on record from the side of respondents to rebut the factum of accident in the manner disclosed.
21. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the offending vehicle bearing no. LD-1LJ-3173 which was being driven by respondent no. 1 is liable for the alleged accident in question that led to injuries being sustained by petitioners/injured. The injuries MACT No. 643/17(DAR), 658/19, 657/19 & 656/19 Gopi & Ors. vs. Dalip Kashyap & Ors.
Page No. 12 /37sustained by the petitioners relates to the accident in question vide their testi- monies Ex. PW-1/A, Ex. PW-2/A and Ex. PW-3/A and medical treatment records including MLC's respectively. Thus, issue no. 1 is decided accordingly.
22. Issue No. 1 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO.2 "Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP"
23. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 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. Rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal stricto sensu.
24. The guiding principles for assessment of "just and reasonable compensation" in injury cases has been laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in III (2007), ACC 676 titled as Oriental Insurance Co,. Ltd., Vs. Vijay Kumar Mittal & Ors that: -
" The possession of one's own body is the first and most valuable all human rights and while awarding compensation for bodily injuries this primary element is to be kept in mind. Bodily injury is to be treated and varies on account of gravity of bodily injury. Though it is impossible to equate money with human suffering, agony and personal deprivation, the Court and Tribunal should make an honest and serious attempt to award damages so far as money can compensate the loss. Regard must be given to the gravity and degree of deprivation as well as the degree of awareness of the deprivation. Damages awarded in personal injury cases must be substantial and not token damages".
MACT No. 643/17(DAR), 658/19, 657/19 & 656/19 Gopi & Ors. vs. Dalip Kashyap & Ors.
Page No. 13 /3725. It has been further held by the Hon'ble High Court that:
"the general principle which should govern the assessment of damages in persons injury cases is that the Court should award to injured persons such a sum as will put him in the same position as he would have been in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained injuries".
26. The Hon'ble Apex Court while reiterating the principle of just compensation has held the same to be a challange a warranting sensitive as well as dispassionate exercise holding that neither the sentiments nor emotions may play a role but the fundamental principle of just compensation needs to be inhered. It has been further held that the compensation should be just and is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly or a pittance. Reliance is placed on 2012 (8) SLT 676 titled K. Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
27. The petitioners Gopi, Sonu and Ajay have suffered injuries on account of the alleged accident which has adversely affected not only their day to day avocation but also loss of general amenities and even have suffered long pain and sufferings. As such they are entitled to be restituted by way of just and reasonable compensation which under the various heads is determined as under:-
(A) COMPENSATION QUA PETITIONER No. 1 GOPI
MEDICAL EXPENSES
28. PW-1 Gopi, petitioner has deposed in his testimony that after the accident, he was taken to first Dr. B.S.A. Hospital, Rohini, Delhi where he was medically examined vide MLC (Ex. PW1/2) and thereafter, he took treatment from Sri Balaji Action Medical Institute, Paschim Vihar, Delhi other hospitals. He further deposed that remained hospitalized in Kheterpal Nursing Home for the MACT No. 643/17(DAR), 658/19, 657/19 & 656/19 Gopi & Ors. vs. Dalip Kashyap & Ors.
Page No. 14 /37period from 03.04.2017 to 06.04.2017. He has placed on record his medical bills of Rs. 73,394/- which he actually spent towards medicines/treatment. The bills have been duly proved on record as Ex. PW1/3 (colly.) without being controverted in any manner. Therefore, this tribunal awards a total sum of Rs. 73,394/- (Rupees Seventy Three Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Four) Only under the head medical expenses.
LOSS OF INCOME
29. Petitioner namely Gopi (PW1) has categorically deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that at the time of accident he was studying in B.A. (First year). He further deposed that he could not discharge his daily work due to injuries suffered by him. He has placed on record the photocopy of his identity card (Ex. PW1/5) showing that he was pursuing graduation from School of Open Learning, University of Delhi. The petitioner Gopi has claimed Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of pain and agony, loss of income, and loss of enjoyment of life. The petitioner has however placed on record his marksheet of intermediate which is proved on record as Ex. PW-1/4. Since, the petitioner was studying and not earning, there is no loss of income. Hence, no compensation is awarded under this head.
LOSS TO STUDIES
30. Petitioner Gopi (PW1) has categorically deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that at the time of accident he was studying in B.A. (First year). He further deposed that he could not discharge his daily work due to injuries suffered by him and even has suffered loss to studies. He has placed on record the photocopy of his identity card (Ex. PW1/5) showing that he was pursuing graduation from School of Open Learning, University of Delhi. While, the petitioner has failed to lead any cogent evidence to prove that he actually MACT No. 643/17(DAR), 658/19, 657/19 & 656/19 Gopi & Ors. vs. Dalip Kashyap & Ors.
Page No. 15 /37suffered loss to his studies but taking into account the medical records including the MLC, the studies to the petitioner might have been affected to some extent. In these circumstances, this tribunal awards an amount of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) only under the head of loss to studies.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
31. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in "Vinod Kumar Bitoo Vs. Roshni & Ors." Passed in appeal MAC. APP 517/2010 decided on 05.07.2012, has held as under:-
"It is difficult to measure the pain and suffering in terms of money which is suffered by a victim on account of serious injuries caused to him in a motor vehicle accident. Since the compensation is required to be paid for pain and suffering an attempt must be made to award compensation which may have some objective relation with the pain and suffering underwent by the victim. For this purpose, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts normally consider the nature of injury; the part of the body where the injuries were sustained, surgeries, if any, underwent by the victim, confinement in the hospital and the duration of treatment".
32. PW-1 Sh. Gopi, petitioner himself has deposed in his testimony by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A that he had sustained injuries due to the accident in question. The MLC of petitioner would show that he had suffered grievous injuries. Thus, he would have undergone sufficient physical sufferings and mental shock on account of the accident in question. Considering the MLC which shows the nature of injuries suffered by injured Sh. Gopi to be grievous, this tribunal awards a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) Only towards pain and suffering to the petitioner/injured.
MACT No. 643/17(DAR), 658/19, 657/19 & 656/19 Gopi & Ors. vs. Dalip Kashyap & Ors.
Page No. 16 /37SPECIAL DIET & NUTRITON
33. In the present claim petition, there are sufficient material on record to establish that the petitioner had suffered multiple injuries. The petitioner has deposed that he had spent money towards special diet and nutrition but has failed to place on record any receipts. The petitioner without doubt needed sufficient nutrition in order to ensure his good health and fast recovery. Though, the petitioner has failed to file any receipt thereto. Considering, the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the petitioner must have taken special protein rich diet at least of Rs. 20,000/-. Thus, Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) Only is awarded under the head of Special diet and nutrition.
CONVEYANCE & ATTENDANT CHARGES
34. The petitioner has claimed that he had spent money for visit to the hospital as taxi fare and towards attendant charges. Although, he has failed to lead any cogent evidence on record to show that how much amount had he spent on account of conveyance and attendant. Taking into account the medico legal report of petitioner, he might have incurred expenses towards conveyance charges while commuting to the concerned hospital as OPD patient for his regular checkup and follow up during the period of his medical treatment. He would have been definitely helped by some person either outsider or from his family, to perform his daily activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of his medical treatment. In these facts and circumstances, this tribunal awards a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) Only for conveyance charges and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. 5,000 X 2 months) (Rupees Ten Thousand) Only for attendant charges.
35. Thus, the total compensation qua petitioner Gopi is assessed as under:-
MACT No. 643/17(DAR), 658/19, 657/19 & 656/19 Gopi & Ors. vs. Dalip Kashyap & Ors.Page No. 17 /37
1. Medical expense Rs. 73,394/-
2. Loss to studies Rs. 15,000/-
3. Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/-
4. Conveyance Attendant charges and Rs. 10,000/-+ Rs.
special diet 10,000/- + 20,000/-=
40,000/-
Total Rs. 1,78,394 /-
Or say Rs. 1,78,500/-
(B) COMPENSATION QUA PETITIONER No. 2 SONU
MEDICAL EXPENSES
36. PW-2 Sonu, petitioner has deposed in his testimony that after the accident, he was taken to first Dr. B.S.A. Hospital, Rohini, Delhi where he was medically examined. He has placed on record his medical bills of Rs. 23,393/-
which he actually spent towards medicines/treatment. The bills have been duly proved on record as Ex. PW-2/3 (colly.) without being controverted in any manner. Therefore, this tribunal awards a total sum of Rs. 23,393/- (Rupees Twenty Three Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Three) Only under the head of medical expenses.
LOSS OF INCOME
37. Petitioner namely Sonu (PW-2) has categorically deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW-2/A) that at the time of accident he was studying in B.A. First year from University of Delhi. He further deposed that he could not do any work or his study due to the accident in question. The petitioner has however placed on record his certificate of matriculation which is proved on record as Ex. PW-2/4. Since, the petitioner was studying and not earning, there is no loss of income. Hence, no compensation is awarded under this head.
MACT No. 643/17(DAR), 658/19, 657/19 & 656/19 Gopi & Ors. vs. Dalip Kashyap & Ors.
Page No. 18 /37LOSS TO STUDIES
38. Petitioner Sonu (PW2) has categorically deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW2/A) that at the time of accident he was studying in B.A. (First year). He further deposed that he could not discharge his daily work due to injuries suffered by him and even has suffered loss to studies. He has placed on record the photocopy of his identity card (Ex. PW2/5) showing that he was pursuing graduation from School of Open Learning, University of Delhi. While, the petitioner has failed to lead any cogent evidence to prove that he actully suffered loss to his studies but taking into account the medical records including the MLC, the studies to the petitioner might have been affected to some extent due to the injuries. In these circumstances, this tribunal awards an amount of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) only under the head of loss to studies.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
39. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in "Vinod Kumar Bitoo Vs. Roshni & Ors." Passed in appeal MAC. APP 517/2010 decided on 05.07.2012, has held as under:-
"It is difficult to measure the pain and suffering in terms of money which is suffered by a victim on account of serious injuries caused to him in a motor vehicle accident. Since the compensation is required to be paid for pain and suffering an attempt must be made to award compensation which may have some objective relation with the pain and suffering underwent by the victim. For this purpose, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts normally consider the nature of injury; the part of the body where the injuries were sustained, surgeries, if any, underwent by the victim, confinement in the hospital and the duration of treatment".
40. PW-2 Sh. Sonu, petitioner himself has deposed in his testimony by way of affidavit Ex. PW-2/A that he had sustained injuries due to the accident in question. The MLC of petitioner would show that he had suffered dangerous injuries. Thus, he would have undergone sufficient physical sufferings and MACT No. 643/17(DAR), 658/19, 657/19 & 656/19 Gopi & Ors. vs. Dalip Kashyap & Ors.
Page No. 19 /37mental shock on account of the accident in question. Considering the MLC which shows the nature of injuries suffered by injured Sh. Sonu to be dangerous, this tribunal awards a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) Only towards pain and suffering to the petitioner/injured.
SPECIAL DIET & NUTRITON
41. In the present claim petition, there are sufficient material on record to establish that the petitioner had suffered multiple injuries. The petitioner has deposed that he had spent money towards special diet and nutrition but has failed to place on record any receipts. The petitioner without doubt needed sufficient nutrition in order to ensure his good health and fast recovery. Though, the petitioner has failed to file any receipt thereto. Considering, the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the petitioner must have taken special protein rich diet at least of Rs. 20,000/-. Thus, Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) Only is awarded under the head of Special diet and nutrition.
CONVEYANCE & ATTENDANT CHARGES
42. The petitioner has claimed that he had spent money for visit to the hospital as taxi fare and towards attendant charges. Although, he has failed to lead any cogent evidence on record to show that how much amount had he spent on account of conveyance and attendant. Taking into account the medico legal report of petitioner, he might have incurred expenses towards conveyance charges while commuting to the concerned hospital as OPD patient for his regular checkup and follow up during the period of his medical treatment. He would have been definitely helped by some person either outsider or from his family, to perform his daily activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of his medical treatment. In these facts and circumstances, this tribunal awards a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) Only for conveyance MACT No. 643/17(DAR), 658/19, 657/19 & 656/19 Gopi & Ors. vs. Dalip Kashyap & Ors.
Page No. 20 /37charges and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. 5,000 X 2 months) (Rupees Ten Thousand) Only for attendant charges.
43. Thus, the total compensation qua petitioner Sonu is assessed as under:-
1. Medical expense Rs. 23,393/-
2. Loss to studies Rs.15,000/-
3. Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/-
4. Conveyance Attendant charges and Rs. 10,000/-+ Rs.
special diet 10,000/- + 20,000/-=
40,000/-
Total Rs. 1,28,393/-
Or say Rs.1,28,500/-
(C) COMPENSATION QUA PETITIONER No. 3 AJAY
MEDICAL EXPENSES
44. PW-3 Ajay, petitioner has deposed in his testimony that after the accident, he was taken to first Dr. B.S.A. Hospital, Rohini, Delhi where he was medically examined vide MLC bearing no. 3934/17 (Ex. PW3/1). The said MLC shows that the petitioner has suffered simple injuries in the accident but has failed to file any medical bills which he could have spent on his treatment. In these circumstances, no amount is awarded under the head of medical expenses.
LOSS OF INCOME
45. Petitioner namely Ajay (PW-3) has categorically deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW-2/A) that at the time of accident he was studying in B.A. First year from University of Delhi. He further deposed that he MACT No. 643/17(DAR), 658/19, 657/19 & 656/19 Gopi & Ors. vs. Dalip Kashyap & Ors.Page No. 21 /37
could not do any work or his study due to the accident in question. The petitioner has however placed on record his mark sheet of matriculation in his petition file. Since, the petitioner was studying and not earning, there is no loss of income. Hence, no compensation is awarded under this head.
LOSS TO STUDIES
46. Petitioner namely Ajay (PW-3) has categorically deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW-2/A) that at the time of accident he was studying in B.A. First year from University of Delhi. He further deposed that he could not do any work or his study due to the accident in question. The petitioner as per the MLC Ex. PW3/2 has suffered the injuries to be simple. In these facts and circumstances, this tribunal awards a sum of Rs. 5,000/- under the head of loss to studies.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
47. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in "Vinod Kumar Bitoo Vs. Roshni & Ors." Passed in appeal MAC. APP 517/2010 decided on 05.07.2012, has held as under:-
"It is difficult to measure the pain and suffering in terms of money which is suffered by a victim on account of serious injuries caused to him in a motor vehicle accident. Since the compensation is required to be paid for pain and suffering an attempt must be made to award compensation which may have some objective relation with the pain and suffering underwent by the victim. For this purpose, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts normally consider the nature of injury; the part of the body where the injuries were sustained, surgeries, if any, underwent by the victim, confinement in the hospital and the duration of treatment".
48. PW-3 Sh. Ajay, petitioner himself has deposed in his testimony by way of affidavit Ex. PW-3/A that he had sustained injuries due to the accident in question. The MLC of petitioner would show that he had suffered simple injuries.
MACT No. 643/17(DAR), 658/19, 657/19 & 656/19 Gopi & Ors. vs. Dalip Kashyap & Ors.
Page No. 22 /37Thus, he would have undergone sufficient physical sufferings and mental shock on account of the accident in question. Considering the MLC which shows the nature of injuries suffered by injured Sh. Ajay to be simple, this tribunal awards a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) Only towards pain and suffering to the petitioner/injured.
SPECIAL DIET & NUTRITON
49. In the present claim petition, there are sufficient material on record to establish that the petitioner had suffered multiple injuries. The petitioner has deposed that he had spent money towards special diet and nutrition but has failed to place on record any receipts. The petitioner without doubt needed sufficient nutrition in order to ensure his good health and fast recovery. Though, the petitioner has failed to file any receipt thereto. Considering, the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the petitioner must have taken special protein rich diet at least of Rs. 5,000/-. Thus, Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) Only is awarded under the head of Special diet and nutrition.
CONVEYANCE & ATTENDANT CHARGES
50. The petitioner has claimed that he had spent money for visit to the hospital as taxi fare and towards attendant charges. Although, he has failed to lead any cogent evidence on record to show that how much amount had he spent on account of conveyance and attendant. Taking into account the medico legal report of petitioner, he might have incurred expenses towards conveyance charges while commuting to the concerned hospital as OPD patient for his regular checkup and follow up during the period of his medical treatment. He would have been definitely helped by some person either outsider or from his family, to perform his daily activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of his medical treatment. In these facts and circumstances, this tribunal MACT No. 643/17(DAR), 658/19, 657/19 & 656/19 Gopi & Ors. vs. Dalip Kashyap & Ors.
Page No. 23 /37awards a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) Only for conveyance charges and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. 5,000 X 1 month) (Rupees Five Thousand) Only for attendant charges.
51. Thus, the total compensation qua petitioner Ajay is assessed as under:-
1. Medical expense Nil
2. Loss to studies Rs. 5,000/-
3. Pain and suffering Rs. 10,000/-
4. Conveyance, Attendant charges and Rs. 5,000/- + Rs. 5,000/-
special diet + 5,000/-= 15,000/-
Total Rs. 30,000/-
This issue is decided accordingly
LIABILITY
52. Now the liability is to be fixed as to which of the respondents shall pay the amount of compensation and to what extent. The offending vehicle was admittedly insured at the time of accident with respondent no. 3 i.e. Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd. vide policy no. OG-17-1104-1831-00005071 having validity upto 07.02.2018. The respondent no. 1 at the time of accident was holding a valid driving license but all the three petitioners/injured were not having valid DL as also were not wearing helmet at the time of the accident, as such, they have have also contributed towards negligence. Therefore, this tribunal deem it appropriate to deduct 20% each of the amount out of the compensation to be awarded in favour of the petitioners. The amount of compensation after deduction of 20% each comes out to be Rs. 1,42,800/-
in favour of petitioner Gopi, Rs. 1,02,800/- in favour of petitioner Sonu and Rs. 24,000/- in favour of petitioner Ajay. The insurance policy as well as the MACT No. 643/17(DAR), 658/19, 657/19 & 656/19 Gopi & Ors. vs. Dalip Kashyap & Ors.
Page No. 24 /37driving license of the respondent no. 1 are not disputed by any of the respondents. Since, the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no. 3 at the time of accident. Therefore, the insurance company is, liable to indemnify the insured u/s 149(1) of MV Act and hence, liable to pay the compensation amount as awarded by the Tribunal to the petitioners.
ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF
53. In view of the discussion and findings of this Tribunal on issue no. 1and 2, this Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs. 1,42,800/- (Rupees One One Lac Forty Two Thousand Eight Hundred) Only, including interim award, if any, along-with interest @ 9% per annum in favour of petitioner Gopi, Rs. 1,02,800/- (Rupees One Lakh Two Thousand Eight Hundred) Only including interim award, if any, alongwith interest @ 9% per annum in favour of petitioner Sonu and Rs. 24,000/- (Rupees Twenty Fourt Thousand) Only including interim award, if any, alongwith interest @ 9% per annum in favour of petitioner Ajay AND against respondents (to be indemnified by the insurer/ Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd.) w.e.f. date of filing of the DAR/petition i.e 10.08.2017 till the date of its realization. Respondent no. 3/insurance company is directed to deposit the award with upto date interest within 30 days from today i.e. the date of passing the award. Reliance is placed on judgment "Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Devi & Ors., bearing MAC APP 165/2011 decided on 22.02.2016.
APPORTIONMENT
54. Examination of petitioners to ascertain their financial condition/needs, mode of disbursement and amount to be kept in fixed deposits in terms of clause 26 (now clause 29 of MCTAP were recorded on 05.03.2020. The Bank Manager of the concerned bank where the petitioners have opened MACT No. 643/17(DAR), 658/19, 657/19 & 656/19 Gopi & Ors. vs. Dalip Kashyap & Ors.
Page No. 25 /37his MACT Claims SB Account were also directed not to issue any cheque book
(s) or Debit Card/ATM Card against the said account and shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the petitioners to this effect. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present claim petition and in view of said statement of the injured/petitioners and clause 32 of MCTAP regarding protection of the award amount, It is hereby ordered that entire amount of compensation with interest be released to the petitioners through their respective saving bank accounts bearing no. 603410110017251, Bank of India, Branch Rajouri Garden, Delhi in the name of petitioner Gopi, 435602010014069, Union Bank of India, Branch Rajouri Garden, Delhi in the name of petitioner Sonu and 0605001500109092, Punjab National Bank, Branch Rajouri Garden, Delhi.
55. Petitioner is at liberty to submit his Form 15G and 15H whichever is applicable directly to the Office of Insurance Company for exemption from TDS as per law. Accordingly, the award amount with interest, is directed to be deposited by R-3 i.e. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. in State Bank of India, Branch Rohini Court Complex, Delhi initially which shall then transmit the amount in MACAD account of the petitioner for maximum benefit of interest.
56. The respondent no. 3 i.e. Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd. Shall give notice of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant(s) and shall file a compliance report with this Tribunal with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days of the deposit with the interest upto the date of notice of deposit to the claimant (s) with a copy of their counsel within 30 days of the award. The names and address of the claimant is mentioned at page No. 1 of this award and the name and address of his counsel is as under:-
Sh. Ashok Dahiya, Advocate Chamber No. 719, 7th floor, Lawyers Chamber, Rohini Courts, Delhi MACT No. 643/17(DAR), 658/19, 657/19 & 656/19 Gopi & Ors. vs. Dalip Kashyap & Ors.Page No. 26 /37
57. It is made clear that at the time of deposit of award amount with the bank, the insurance company shall specifically mention the Case No., title of the case, date of award and the name of the court on the backside of the cheque and the insurance company shall also file the attested copy of the award, attested by its own officer, to the bank at the time of deposit of the amount with the bank. The Manager concerned of the bank is directed to comply the award and further directed to release the award amount to the petitioner through bank account. Till the amount is released through the said account, the concerned banks shall keep the money in FDR's to avoid any loss of interest.
58. R-3 i.e. Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed to deposit the award amount within 30 days after sending notice of deposit to the petitioners.
59. Copy of this judgment/award be given to petitioner and counsel for R-3 for compliance. Copy of order be also sent to concerned M.M and DSLSA as per clause 35 (ii) and 36 of MCTAP. The same be also placed in all the claim petition files.
60. Copy of this award be also sent to the Nodal Officer State Bank of India, through e-mail ID i.e. [email protected] in terms of the order dated 22.02.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in case FAO No. 842/03 titled "Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir & Ors.
MACT No. 643/17(DAR), 658/19, 657/19 & 656/19 Gopi & Ors. vs. Dalip Kashyap & Ors.
Page No. 27 /3761. File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities. However, separate miscellaneous file be prepared for compliance of award in terms of clause 34 of MCTAP which is to be put up by Nazir of the tribunal along-with his report on 12.04.2020.
Announced in the open Court today i.e. on 13.03.2020 (MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA) ADJ-1 + MACT (N/W), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI MACT No. 643/17(DAR), 658/19, 657/19 & 656/19 Gopi & Ors. vs. Dalip Kashyap & Ors.
Page No. 28 /37FORM - IV B SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD OF INJURED GOPI
1. Date of the accident: - 26.03.2017
2. Name of injured:- Sh. Gopi
3. Age of the injured:-21 years (at the time of the accident)
4. Occupation of the injured:- Petitioner/injured was Studying in B.A. First Year from Delhi University.
5. Income of the injured:- Nil.
6. Nature of injury:- Grievous.
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured:- Petitioner/injured was first got admitted to Dr. B.S.A. Hospital, Rohini, Delhi and thereafter, he was shifted to Shri Balaji Action Medical Institute.
8. Period of hospitalization: Petitioner injured remained admitted in Shri Balaji Action Medical Institute w.e.f. 03.04.2017 to 06.04.2017.
9. Whether any permanent disability? If yes, give details: - No.
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 73,394/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.10,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 20,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 10,000/-
MACT No. 643/17(DAR), 658/19, 657/19 & 656/19 Gopi & Ors. vs. Dalip Kashyap & Ors.
Page No. 29 /37 (v) Loss of earning capacity ----
(vi) Loss of income/ Loss to studies Rs.15,000/-
(vii) Any other loss which may require any -
special treatment or aid to the injured
for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(I) Compensation for mental and physical --
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life --
(iv) Disfiguration --
(v) Loss of marriage prospects --
(vi) Loss of earning, 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 assessed and --
nature of disability as permanent or
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of --
expectation of life span on account of
disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity --
in relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (Income X% --
MACT No. 643/17(DAR), 658/19, 657/19 & 656/19 Gopi & Ors. vs. Dalip Kashyap & Ors.
Page No. 30 /37
Earning capacity X Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 1,78,394/-
Rounded off 1,78,500/-
After deducting 20% of
the total compensation
amount towards
contributory negligence
is Rs. 1,42,800/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9%
16. Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 33,309.57p
award
17. Total amount including interest Rs. 1,76,109.57p
18. Award amount released ----
19. Award amount kept in FDRs The entire amount of the
compensation amount
along-with interest be
released to the petitioner
through his saving bank
account.
20. Mode of disbursement of the award
Motor Accident Claims
amount to the claimant (s) (Clause29) Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in terms of clause 32 of MCTAP.
21. Next date for compliance of the 12.04.2020 award. (Clause 31) (MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA) ADJ-1+MACT(N/W), Rohini Courts, Delhi MACT No. 643/17(DAR), 658/19, 657/19 & 656/19 Gopi & Ors. vs. Dalip Kashyap & Ors.
Page No. 31 /37FORM - IV B SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD OF INJURED SONU
1. Date of the accident: - 26.03.2017
2. Name of injured:- Sh. Sonu
3. Age of the injured:-20 years (at the time of the accident)
4. Occupation of the injured:- Petitioner/injured was Studying in B.A. First Year from Delhi University.
5. Income of the injured:- Nil.
6. Nature of injury:- Grievous.
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured:- Petitioner/injured was got admitted to Dr. B.S.A. Hospital, Rohini, Delhi.
8. Period of hospitalization: Not Mentioned.
9. Whether any permanent disability? If yes, give details: - No.
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 23,393/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.10,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 20,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 10,000/-
(v) Loss of earning capacity ----
(vi) Loss of income/ Loss to studies Rs.15,000/-
(vii) Any other loss which may require any -
special treatment or aid to the injured
MACT No. 643/17(DAR), 658/19, 657/19 & 656/19 Gopi & Ors. vs. Dalip Kashyap & Ors.
Page No. 32 /37for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(I) Compensation for mental and physical --
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life --
(iv) Disfiguration --
(v) Loss of marriage prospects --
(vi) Loss of earning, 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 assessed and --
nature of disability as permanent or
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of --
expectation of life span on account of
disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity --
in relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (Income X% --
Earning capacity X Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 1,28,393/-
Rounded off 1,28,500/-
After deducting 20% of
the total compensation
amount towards
MACT No. 643/17(DAR), 658/19, 657/19 & 656/19 Gopi & Ors. vs. Dalip Kashyap & Ors.
Page No. 33 /37
contributory negligence
is Rs. 1,02,800/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9%
16. Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 23,979.16
award
17. Total amount including interest Rs. 1,26,779.16
18. Award amount released ----
19. Award amount kept in FDRs The entire amount of the
compensation amount
along-with interest be
released to the petitioner
through his saving bank
account.
20. Mode of disbursement of the award
Motor Accident Claims
amount to the claimant (s) (Clause29)
Tribunal Annuity Deposit
(MACAD) in terms of
clause 32 of MCTAP.
21. Next date for compliance of the 12.04.2020
award. (Clause 31)
(MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA)
ADJ-1+MACT(N/W),
Rohini Courts, Delhi
MACT No. 643/17(DAR), 658/19, 657/19 & 656/19 Gopi & Ors. vs. Dalip Kashyap & Ors.
Page No. 34 /37FORM - IV B SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD OF INJURED Ajay
1. Date of the accident: - 26.03.2017
2. Name of injured:- Sh. Ajay
3. Age of the injured:-23 years (at the time of the accident)
4. Occupation of the injured:- Petitioner/injured was Studying in B.A. First Year from Delhi University.
5. Income of the injured:- Nil.
6. Nature of injury:- Grievous.
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured:- Petitioner/injured was first got admitted to Dr. B.S.A. Hospital, Rohini, Delhi.
8. Period of hospitalization: Not mentioned.
9. Whether any permanent disability? If yes, give details: - No.
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Nil.
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 5,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 5,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 5,000/-
(v) Loss of earning capacity ----
(vi) Loss of income/ Loss to studies Rs.5,000/-
(vii) Any other loss which may require any -
special treatment or aid to the injured
MACT No. 643/17(DAR), 658/19, 657/19 & 656/19 Gopi & Ors. vs. Dalip Kashyap & Ors.
Page No. 35 /37
for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(I) Compensation for mental and physical --
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.10,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life --
(iv) Disfiguration --
(v) Loss of marriage prospects --
(vi) Loss of earning, 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 assessed and --
nature of disability as permanent or
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of --
expectation of life span on account of
disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity --
in relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (Income X% --
Earning capacity X Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 30,000/-
After deducting 20% of
the total compensation
amount towards
contributory negligence
is Rs.24,000/-
MACT No. 643/17(DAR), 658/19, 657/19 & 656/19 Gopi & Ors. vs. Dalip Kashyap & Ors.
Page No. 36 /37
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9%
16. Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 5598.24p
award
17. Total amount including interest Rs. 29,598.25p
18. Award amount released ----
19. Award amount kept in FDRs The entire amount of the
compensation amount
along-with interest be
released to the petitioner
through his saving bank
account.
20. Mode of disbursement of the award
Motor Accident Claims
amount to the claimant (s) (Clause29)
Tribunal Annuity Deposit
(MACAD) in terms of
clause 32 of MCTAP.
21. Next date for compliance of the 12.04.2020
award. (Clause 31)
(MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA)
ADJ-1+MACT(N/W),
Rohini Courts, Delhi
MACT No. 643/17(DAR), 658/19, 657/19 & 656/19 Gopi & Ors. vs. Dalip Kashyap & Ors.
Page No. 37 /37