Delhi District Court
Rattan Chand Sharma (Dar) vs Jai Khullar (318/19, Kmp) on 18 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARU GUPTA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-01 (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No: 1042/19
Rattan Chand vs. Jai Khullar & anr.
CNR No: DLSE01-0104652019
1. Rattan Chand Sharma
S/o Sh. C R Sharma
R/o House no. B-32, Fatehpur Beri Extn.
New Delhi-110030.
.....Petitioner
Versus
1. Jai Khullar
S/o Sh. Dalip Khullar
R/o House no. 8/8, near S.J. Terminal
Prem Nagar, New Delhi.
............Driver cum owner/Respondent no.1
2. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. office at: 5th Florr, Tower-1, Stellar I.T Park, E-25, Sec 62 Noida(U.P.) ......Insurance Company/Respondent no.2 MACT No. 1042/19 Rattan Chand Sharma vs. Jai Khullar & anr. P.No. 1 of 19 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.03.18 16:01:37 +0530 Date of accident : 20.10.2019 Result of accident : Grievous injury Date of filing of DAR : 19.12.2019 Date of Decision : 18.03.2025 AWARD
1. The present claim arises out of a detailed accident report (DAR), filed by the police on 20.10.2019, in which the petitioner Rattan Chand Sharma allegedly suffered grievous injuries. In terms of the provision of Motor Vehicle Act, the same is treated as a claim petition.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 20.10.2019, a complaint was received from one Ravindra Bhati informing that on such date at about 5:15 PM, the complainant was present at Safdarjung Terminal. He heard a sudden sound of a car collision.
On reaching the spot, he saw that a car bearing no.DL-7CQ-4801(hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) had hit a stationary vehicle Honda City bearing no. DL-4CEB-0500 due to which two persons namely Virender Singh and Rattan Chand Sharma got crushed under the vehicle. He took both the injured persons to AIIMS Trauma Center. By then, the driver of offending vehicle had fled from the spot. Complainant called at 100 number and informed the police.
3. An FIR no. 0318/2019 was registered u/s 279/337 of IPC against respondent no.1. Upon investigation chargesheet u/s 279/338 of IPC was filed before concerned criminal court and two separate DARs in respect of two injured persons was filed before this Tribunal.
MACT No. 1042/19 Rattan Chand Sharma vs. Jai Khullar & anr. P.No. 2 of 19 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.03.18
16:01:41
+0530
4. Respondent no.1 is driver cum owner of the offending vehicle and respondent no.2 is the insurance company with which such offending vehicle was insured.
5. In response to the DAR, respondent no.1/driver cum owner filed his reply denying the occurrence of the accident and refuting the allegations of rash and negligent driving on his part. It is pleaded that the petitioner had been operating a repair workshop as mechanics on the road. It is further pleaded that the respondent was having a valid driving licence and his vehicle was duly insured.
The insurance company did not raise any statutory defence and filed a legal offer which was declined by the petitioner.
6. After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed on 18.01.2021.
1. Whether the injured suffered injuries in a road traffic accident on 20.10.2019 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. DL-7CQ-4801 being driven and owned by R1 and insured with R2? OPP.
2. Whether the injured are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
7. Thereafter, evidence was led by the petitioner no.1 Rattan by examining himself as PW-1.
PW-1/petitioner Sh. Rattan tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A wherein he reiterated the contents relied upon documents i.e. his Adhar Card as Ex.PW1/1 (colly)(OSR), complete DAR as Ex.PW1/2 (colly), Treatment record and bills as Ex.PW1/3 (colly) and disability certificate as Ex.PW1/4 MACT No. 1042/19 Rattan Chand Sharma vs. Jai Khullar & anr. P.No. 3 of 19 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.03.18 16:01:44 +0530 (colly). PW-1 was duly cross examined by counsel for respondent no.2/insurance company.
8. No evidence was led by the respondents.
9. Final arguments were advanced by Ld. Counsel for petitioner and by insurance company.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, evidence adduced and arguments addressed, issue wise findings are as under:
Issue No. 1Whether the injured suffered injuries in a road traffic accident on 20.10.2019 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. DL-7CQ-4801 being driven and owned by R1 and insured with R2? OPP.
10. Before proceeding to decide the above issue, it is apposite to note that as a settled principle of law, proceedings under The Motor Vehicle Act are not considered akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not applicable. Reliance is placed upon decision in Bimla Devi & ors. vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & ors. (2009) 13 SC 535, in Parmeshwari vs. Amir Chand & ors., 2011 (1) SCR 1096 and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ 287, wherein it has been held that the negligence has to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view has to be taken.
11. In the present case, petitioner/injured Rattan Chand Sharma has examined himself as PW-1 wherein he has testified in detail, the date and manner of accident on the lines of DAR as well as chargesheet. He has categorically deposed that the accident was caused when the offending vehicle hit a stationary MACT No. 1042/19 Rattan Chand Sharma vs. Jai Khullar & anr. P.No. 4 of 19 ss Digitally signed CHARU by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.03.18 16:01:48 +0530 vehicle which the victim Rattan Chand Sharma and his co worker Virender Singh were repairing. He has not been cross examined by the driver cum owner of the vehicle and thus, the issue of occurrence of the accident and negligence of driver of the offending vehicle remains unrebutted. PW-1 has sustained a thorough cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for insurance company and there is nothing on record to discredit his version.
12. The police after investigation had filed chargesheet against respondent no.1 under Section 279/338 of IPC which is also suggestive of negligence of respondent no.1 in causing the accident. In National Insurance Co. vs. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, it was laid down that completion of investigation and filing of chargesheet are sufficient proof of negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
13. The driver of the offending vehicle has not entered the witness box or raised any defence to negate or refute the allegations of rash and negligent driving. In Cholamandlam insurance company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh 2009 (3) AD Delhi 310, it was held that if driver of offending vehicle does not enter the witness box, an adverse inference can be drawn against him. In the present case also, driver did not enter into the witness box to controvert the claim of petitioner or even to explain circumstances of accident.
14. In totality of circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the claimant have been able to prove at the scales of preponderance of probabilities that the accident in question, took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing no. DL-7CQ-4801 by its driver/respondent no.1 on the MACT No. 1042/19 Rattan Chand Sharma vs. Jai Khullar & anr. P.No. 5 of 19 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.03.18 16:01:51 +0530 date and time of accident. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioner/ claimant and against the respondents.
Issue no. 2 Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP.
15. In the instant case Insurance company/respondent no. 2 has not raised any statutory defence against respondent no.1 and as such, under the contractual liability arising out of the insurance policy /contract of insurance, respondent no. 2 is liable to indemnify respondent no.1 (owner of the offending vehicle) by compensating the petitioners.
16. Further it is noted that 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 miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (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.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
MACT No. 1042/19 Rattan Chand Sharma vs. Jai Khullar & anr. P.No. 6 of 19 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2025.03.18 16:01:55 +0530
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
16.1 In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). 16.2 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 earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.
16.3. Assessment of pecuniary damages under Item (i) and under Item (ii) (a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence.
16.4. Award under the head of future medical expenses--Item
(iii)--depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. 16.5. 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. Decisions of Hon'ble SC and Hon'ble High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. 16.6. Observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajkumar v. Ajay MACT No. 1042/19 Rattan Chand Sharma vs. Jai Khullar & anr. P.No. 7 of 19 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2025.03.18 16:01:58 +0530 Kumar & Anr. is quoted hereunder:
"10. 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 ability (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 is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, 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. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of `loss of future earnings', if the claimant MACT No. 1042/19 Rattan Chand Sharma vs. Jai Khullar & anr. P.No. 8 of 19 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.03.18 16:02:02 +0530 continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation.
PECUNIARY /SPECIAL DAMAGES
(i) Loss of earnings.
Actual loss of earning:
17. As regards loss of income, in his cross examination petitioner no.1 Rattan Chand Sharma has claimed to be unemployed at the time of accident. As such, his notional income is calculated on the basis of minimum wages of an unskilled labour (as no educational proof has been filed). The minimum wages of Delhi are applicable in the case as the address of the petitioner /Rattan is shown to be of Delhi (Ex.PW1/A) i.e. Rs.14468/- per month.
MACT No. 1042/19 Rattan Chand Sharma vs. Jai Khullar & anr. P.No. 9 of 19 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2025.03.18 16:02:06 +0530 As per MLC of petitioner Rattan Chand Sharma, he was diagnosed with diagnosed with abrasion around 8X5 cm over right shoulder, abrasion over left shoulder, multiple abrasion over extrimities, SPR fracture, left acetabulum fracture, left femur fracture, left distal radium fracture.
The date of admission in JPN Hospital, is shown as 12.11.2019 i.e. date of accident while he was discharge on 14.11.2019.
Considering the nature of injury as well as the age of the victim which may have required more time for healing than any other young aged person, it is assumed that the petitioner may have remained bedridden for atleast 3 months. Hence, actual loss of income is assumed to have been for 3 months i.e. Rs.14468X3=Rs.43,404/-.
Loss of future income/earnings:
18. In the present case, petitioner Rattan Chand Sharma has claimed permanent disability on account of the injuries suffered in the accident. As per the disability certificate issued by Pt.
Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital, New Delhi petitioner has been assessed to be suffering from 85% permanent disability in relation to left upper limb and left lower limb. He has however, not suffered any amputation.
As the monthly income of the petitioner is also assessed to be Rs.14468/-, considering nature of disability, the body part in which such disability has been sustained and the nature of work that the petitioner may have been engaged in, the functional disability of the petitioner in relation to the whole body is ascertained to be not more than 50%. As per Ex.PW1/1, Adhar MACT No. 1042/19 Rattan Chand Sharma vs. Jai Khullar & anr. P.No. 10 of 19 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.03.18 16:02:10 +0530 card, year of birth of the petitioner is 1952, petitioner would have been around 67 years of age at the time of accident (i.e. on 20.10.2019). As such, for purpose of calculating loss of future income, a multiplier of 5, as per Sarla Verma judgment. There should be no addition towards future prospects as per Pranay Sethi judgment. Hence, compensation towards loss of future income is assessed to Rs.14468/- (monthly income) X 12 (annual computation) X 5 (multiplier)=Rs.8,68,080/-. 50% of this amount would be Rs.4,34,040/- Hence so awarded.
(ii) Future Medical Expenses:
19. Since there is no amputation of any limb of the petitioner caused due to injury in the accident and no evidence has been led qua continuous future treatment, no compensation is being granted under this head.
(iii) Expenses relating to treatment:
20. In this case, claimant has proved on record his medical treatment expense/bills Ex.PW1/3 (colly). The same are to the tune of Rs.8,622/- and accordingly, awarded as expenses towards medical treatment.
Apart from expenditure on treatment, a sum of Rs.20,000/- under each head i.e. conveyance, special diet and Rs.30,000/- as cost of nursing/ attendant is granted to the petitioner.
21. In this background, considering the material and evidence on record and the law on compensation in such like cases, as already discussed above, compensation in the present case is calculated as under:
Sl. Pecuniary loss : - Quantum no. MACT No. 1042/19 Rattan Chand Sharma vs. Jai Khullar & anr. P.No. 11 of 19 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2025.03.18 16:02:14 +0530 1. (I) Expenditure on treatment : Rs.8,622/- (ii) Expenditure on Conveyance : Rs.20,000/- (iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs.20,000/- (iv) Cost of nursing / attendant : Rs.30,000/- (v) Loss of income : Rs.43,404/-
Compensation towards loss of income, as noted above (Rs.14468X3)
(vi) Cost of artificial limbs (if NA applicable) :
(vii) Any other loss / expenditure : NA
2. Non-Pecuniary Loss :
(I) Compensation of mental and Rs.50,000/- physical shock :
(ii) Pain and suffering : Rs.50,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life : Rs.50,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration : NA
(v) Loss of marriage prospects : Nil
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity (I) Percentage of disability assessed The petitioner has and nature of disability as permanent or suffered 60% temporary permanent disability in relation left upper limb and left lower limb.
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Already granted expectation of life span on account of disability :
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning Already granted capacity in relation to disability:
(iv) Loss of future Income: The Rs.4,34,040/-
functional disability is taken as 50%.
Total Compensation Rs.7,06,066/-
MACT No. 1042/19 Rattan Chand Sharma vs. Jai Khullar & anr. P.No. 12 of 19 Digitally ss
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.03.18
16:02:18
+0530
Deduction, if any, Nil.
Total Compensation after deduction Nil.
Interest : All above amount
shall be along
with interest @
7.5 % per annum
on total principal
award amount
from date of filing
of DAR till actual
realization.
22. The total compensation payable to the claimant would be Rs.7,06,066/- with simple interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR till its actual realization.
Liability
23. As already discussed, principal award amount/ compensation will be payable by the insurance company of offending vehicle with simple interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR till actual realization.
Directions Regarding Deposit Of Award Amount In Bank:
24. In compliance of directions issued vide order dated 16.11.2021 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition Civil No.534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India the award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT SAVING ACCOUNT No. 00000042706875094, IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir in the MACT No. 1042/19 Rattan Chand Sharma vs. Jai Khullar & anr. P.No. 13 of 19 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.03.18 16:02:22 +0530 prescribed format i.e. MCOP Number on the file of (Claims Tribunal Name) Date of award, Compensation Amount, Income Tax Deduction at Source, Bank Transaction Reference No./Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. In turn, the State Bank of India, Saket Courts Branch shall receive the deposited sum and capture the above information and furnish a statement of account on a daily basis to the Nazir of this Tribunal to reconcile the deposits of compensation and the respective MCOPs towards which such deposits are made. On such deposits being made, the insurance company shall submit a letter to the Nazir of this Tribunal enclosing a copy of the said bank advice, in prescribed format as above, as per which the deposit made to the bank account of this Tribunal, to enable this Tribunal to keep tab on the deposits made and the MCOPs for which they were made. The Payment advice for remittance of compensation is as under:
PAYMENT ADVICE FOR REMITTANCE OF COMPENSATION :
............ Bank ................... To:
............... Court ........................ We confirm remittance of compensation as follows on instructions of ................................... (insurance company):-
MCOP Number On the file of (Claims Tribunal Name), Place Date of award Amount Deposited, Income Tax Deduction at Source, if any Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. Insurance company of offending vehicle, on deposit, shall also send a copy of the payment advice in above format to this Tribunal and serve a copy of the same on the claimants or their counsel as the case may be.
MACT No. 1042/19 Rattan Chand Sharma vs. Jai Khullar & anr. P.No. 14 of 19 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.03.18 16:02:27 +0530 MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP).
25. This court is in receipt of the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors whereby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has formulated MACAD(Motor Accident Claims Annunity Deposit Scheme) which has been made effective from 01.01.2019. The said orders dated 07.12.2018 also mentions that 21 banks including State Bank of India is one of such banks which are to adhere to MACAD. The State Bank of India, Saket Courts, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Apportionment:-
26. Another issue which is to be decided is out of such Award amount, how much is to be released at present and how much is to kept in the form of FDR for future financial used of the petitioner.
27. At this stage, it is relevant to the refer to the judgment of A. V. Padma & Ors. Vs., R. Venugopal & Ors. (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 378:
"......In the case of Susamma Thomas (supra), this Court issued certain guidelines in order to "safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries due to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation".
MACT No. 1042/19 Rattan Chand Sharma vs. Jai Khullar & anr. P.No. 15 of 19 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.03.18 16:02:31 +0530 Even as per the guidelines issued by this Court Court, long term fixed deposit of amount of compensation is mandatory only in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows. In the case of illiterate claimants, the Tribunal is allowed to consider the request for lumpsum payment for effecting purchase of any movable property such as agricultural implements, rickshaws etc. to earn a living. However, in such cases, the Tribunal shall make sure that the amount is actually spent for the purpose and the demand is not a ruse to withdraw money. In the case of semi-illiterate claimants, the Tribunal should ordinarily invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. But if the Tribunal is satisfied for reasons to be stated in writing that the whole or part of the amount is required for expanding an existing business or for purchasing some property for earning a livelihood, the Tribunal can release the whole or part of the amount of compensation to the claimant provided the Tribunal will ensure that the amount is invested for the purpose for which it is demanded and paid. In the case of literate persons, it is not mandatory to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit.
The expression used in guideline No. (iv) issued by this Court is that in the case of literate persons also the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i), whereas in the guideline Nos.
(i), (ii), (iii) and (v), the expression used is that the Tribunal should. Moreover, in the case of literate persons, the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i) only if, having regard to the age, fiscal background and strata of the society to which the claimant belongs and such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks that in the larger interest of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded, it is necessary to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed MACT No. 1042/19 Rattan Chand Sharma vs. Jai Khullar & anr. P.No. 16 of 19 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2025.03.18 16:02:36 +0530 deposit.
Thus, sufficient discretion has been given to the Tribunal not to insist on investment of the compensation amount in long term fixed deposit and to release even the whole amount in the case of literate persons. However, the Tribunals are often taking a very rigid stand and are mechanically ordering in almost all cases that the amount of compensation shall be invested in long term fixed deposit. They are taking such a rigid and mechanical approach without understanding and appreciating the distinction drawn by this Court in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows and in the case of semiliterate and literate persons. It needs to be clarified that the above guidelines were issued by this Court only to safeguard the interests of the claimants, particularly the minors, illiterates and others whose amounts are sought to be withdrawn on some fictitious grounds. The guidelines were not to be understood to mean that the Tribunals were to take a rigid stand while considering an application seeking release of the money.
The guidelines cast a responsibility on the Tribunals to pass appropriate orders after examining each case on its own merits. However, it is seen that even in cases when there is no possibility or chance of the feed being frittered away by the beneficiary owing to ignorance, illiteracy or susceptibility to exploitation, investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit is directed by the Tribunals as a matter of course and in a routine manner, ignoring the object and the spirit of the guidelines issued by this Court and the genuine requirements of the claimants. Even in the case of literate persons, the Tribunals are automatically ordering investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit without recording that having regard to the age or fiscal background or the MACT No. 1042/19 Rattan Chand Sharma vs. Jai Khullar & anr. P.No. 17 of 19 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.03.18 16:02:40 +0530 strata of the society to which the claimant belongs or such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks it necessary to direct such investment in the larger interests of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded to him.
The Tribunals very often dispose of the claimant's application for withdrawal of the amount of compensation in a mechanical manner and without proper application of mind. This has resulted in serious injustice and hardship to the claimants. The Tribunals appear to think that in view of the guidelines issued by this Court, in every case the amount of compensation should be invested in long term fixed deposit and under no circumstances the Tribunal can release the entire amount of compensation to the claimant even if it is required by him. Hence a change of attitude and approach on the part of the Tribunals is necessary in the interest of justice..."
28. Out of the total amount of Rs.7,06,066/-, Rs.2,06,066/- be released to him in his bank account near his place of residence as per rule/directions and remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/- be kept in the form of monthly FDR of Rs.15,000/- per month alongwith simple interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR till its actual realization, in his bank account near his place of residence.
29. In accordance with the orders dated 08.02.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 in Rajesh Tyagi and others Vs. Jaibir Singh and others. The Nodal Officer of the bank shall ensure the disbursement of the award amount within three weeks of the receipt of the e-mail as mentioned in the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of MACT No. 1042/19 Rattan Chand Sharma vs. Jai Khullar & anr. P.No. 18 of 19 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2025.03.18 16:02:44 +0530 Delhi.
FORM -VI-B SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1 Date of accident 20.10.2019 2 Name of injured Rattan Chand Sharma 3 Age of the injured 67 years 4 Occupation of the Assessed to be unskilled labour.
injured 5 Income of the injured Rs.14468/-per month.
6 Nature injury Injury/Disability 7 Medical treatment AIIMS Truama Center taken by the injured:
8 Period of 2 days Hospitalization 9 Whether any 85% permanent disability in permanent disability? relation to left upper limb and left lower limb.
30. List for compliance on 21.04.2025.
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
Announced in open Court CHARU
GUPTA
GUPTA
Date:
On 18th March, 2025.
2025.03.18
16:02:49
+0530
(Charu Gupta)
PO-MACT-01(South-East)
Saket Court/ New Delhi
MACT No. 1042/19 Rattan Chand Sharma vs. Jai Khullar & anr. P.No. 19 of 19 ss